International Relations

I n tro d u cti o n to i n te rn a ti o n a l
re la ti o n s
M . Cox
w ith R. Cam panaro
IR10 1 1 ,27900 1 1
2 0 1 2
U ndergraduate study in
Economics, Management,
Finance and the Social Sciences
This is an extract from a subject guide for an undergraduate course offered as part of the
U niversity of London International Program m es in Econom ics, M anagem ent, Finance and
the Social Sciences. M aterials for these program m es are developed by academ ics at the
London School of Econom ics and Political Science (LSE).
For m ore inform ation, see: w w w .londoninternational.ac.uk
Thi s gui de was wri t t en f or t he Uni versi t y of London Int ernat i onal
Programmes by Prof essor Mi chael Cox, Prof essor of Int ernat i onal
Rel at i ons, London School of Economi cs and Pol i t i cal Sci ence.
Prof essor Cox has wri t t en more t han 20 vol umes – t he most recent
bei ng Soft power and US foreign policy (Rout l edge, 2010) and The
global 1989: cont inuit y and change in world polit ics (Cambri dge,
2010). Bet ween 2006 and 2009 he was chai r of t he European
Consort i um f or Pol i t i cal Research and bef ore t hat he served on t he execut i ve commi t t ee
of t he Bri t i sh Int ernat i onal St udi es Associ at i on and t he Iri sh Nat i onal Commi t t ee f or
t he St udy of Int ernat i onal Af f ai rs. He i s al so an associ at e research f el l ow at Chat ham
House, London, and bet ween 2001 and 2002 was di rect or of t he Davi d Davi es Memori al
Inst i t ut e f or t he St udy of Int ernat i onal Pol i t i cs based at t he Uni versi t y of Aberyst wyt h.
In 2002, 2007 and agai n i n 2011 he was appoi nt ed as a research f el l ow at t he Nobel
Inst i t ut e i n Osl o, and i n 2003 was made chai r of t he Uni t ed St at es Di scussi on Group at
t he Royal Inst i t ut e of Int ernat i onal Af f ai rs, London. In 2007, Prof essor Cox became an
associ at e f el l ow on t he Transat l ant i c Programme at t he Royal Uni t ed Servi ces Inst i t ut e
Whi t ehal l . He i s co-di rect or of IDEAS, a cent re of st rat egy and di pl omacy based at t he LSE,
and edi t or of t he j ournal Int ernat ional Polit ics.
In wri t i ng t he 2012 edi t i on of t he subj ect gui de, Prof essor Cox had addi t i onal edi t ori al
support f rom Ri chard Campanaro a PhD st udent i n t he LSE’s Depart ment of Int ernat i onal
Rel at i ons.
Thi s i s one of a seri es of subj ect gui des publ i shed by t he Uni versi t y. We regret t hat due
t o pressure of work t he aut hors are unabl e t o ent er i nt o any correspondence rel at i ng t o,
or ari si ng f rom, t he gui de. If you have any comment s on t hi s subj ect gui de, f avourabl e or
unf avourabl e, pl ease use t he f orm at t he back of t hi s gui de.
Uni versi t y of London Int ernat i onal Programmes
Publ i cat i ons Of f i ce
St ewart House
32 Russel l Square
London WC1B 5DN
Uni t ed Ki ngdom
www.l ondoni nt ernat i onal .ac.uk
Publ i shed by: Uni versi t y of London
© Uni versi t y of London 2012
The Uni versi t y of London assert s copyri ght over al l mat eri al i n t hi s subj ect gui de except
where ot herwi se i ndi cat ed. Al l ri ght s reserved. No part of t hi s work may be reproduced i n
any f orm, or by any means, wi t hout permi ssi on i n wri t i ng f rom t he publ i sher.
We make every ef f ort t o cont act copyri ght hol ders. If you t hi nk we have i nadvert ent l y
used your copyri ght mat eri al , pl ease l et us know.
Cont ent s
i
Cont ent s
Acknowledgement s .................................................................................................v
Int roduct ion ............................................................................................................ 1
Int roduct i on t o t he subj ect area ..................................................................................... 1
Syl l abus ......................................................................................................................... 1
Ai ms of t hi s course ........................................................................................................ 2
Learni ng out comes ........................................................................................................ 2
The st ruct ure of t hi s gui de ............................................................................................. 2
Overvi ew of l earni ng resources ...................................................................................... 3
Exami nat i on advi ce...................................................................................................... 12
Part 1: Int roduct ion .............................................................................................. 13
Chapt er 1: The t went iet h cent ury origins of int ernat ional relat ions ................... 15
Ai m of t he chapt er ....................................................................................................... 15
Learni ng out comes ...................................................................................................... 15
Essent i al readi ng ........................................................................................................ 15
Furt her readi ng ............................................................................................................ 15
Works ci t ed ................................................................................................................. 16
Int roduct i on ................................................................................................................ 16
The ori gi ns of i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons: t he Fi rst Worl d War and t he i nt erwar years........... 17
Your f i rst i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons t heory: Real i sm ........................................................... 20
Growi ng di versi t y i n IR ................................................................................................ 22
Int ernat i onal rel at i ons and t he end of t he Col d War ..................................................... 24
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes .......................................................................... 26
Chapt er vocabul ary...................................................................................................... 26
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons .................................................................................... 26
Part 2: Foundat ions ............................................................................................... 27
Chapt er 2: Europe and t he emergence of int ernat ional societ y .......................... 29
Ai ms of t he chapt er ..................................................................................................... 29
Learni ng out comes ...................................................................................................... 29
Essent i al readi ng ......................................................................................................... 29
Furt her readi ng ............................................................................................................ 29
Int roduct i on ................................................................................................................ 30
Ret hi nki ng t he ‘ i nt ernat i onal ’ : t he Engl i sh School and i nt ernat i onal hi st ory ................... 30
European expansi on ................................................................................................... 32
European hegemony .................................................................................................... 33
From t he Long Peace t o t he Great War ......................................................................... 34
The Fi rst Worl d War ..................................................................................................... 37
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes .......................................................................... 38
Chapt er vocabul ary...................................................................................................... 38
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons ..................................................................................... 38
Chapt er 3: The end of t he Cold War ..................................................................... 39
Ai ms of t he chapt er ..................................................................................................... 39
Learni ng out comes ...................................................................................................... 39
Essent i al readi ng ......................................................................................................... 39
Furt her readi ng ............................................................................................................ 39
Int roduct i on ................................................................................................................ 40
The f ai l ure of predi ct i on .............................................................................................. 41
Who won t he Col d War? ............................................................................................. 42
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
i i
IR t heory debat es t he end of t he Col d War .................................................................. 43
The i nt ernat i onal syst em af t er t he end of t he Col d War ................................................ 45
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes .......................................................................... 48
Chapt er vocabul ary...................................................................................................... 48
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons ..................................................................................... 49
Chapt er 4: Globalisat ion: t he past and present of int ernat ional societ y ............. 51
Ai m of t he chapt er ....................................................................................................... 51
Learni ng out comes ...................................................................................................... 51
Essent i al readi ng ......................................................................................................... 51
Furt her readi ng ............................................................................................................ 51
Int roduct i on ................................................................................................................ 52
The hi st ory of gl obal i sat i on .......................................................................................... 53
The Zei t gei st of t he 1990s ........................................................................................... 54
Gl obal i sat i on and t he i nt ernat i onal pol i t i cal order ....................................................... 55
Thi nki ng about gl obal i sat i on ....................................................................................... 56
The doubl e cri si s of gl obal i sat i on?................................................................................ 58
Gl obal i sat i on 4.0? ...................................................................................................... 60
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes .......................................................................... 60
Chapt er vocabul ary...................................................................................................... 61
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons ..................................................................................... 61
Part 3: Theories of int ernat ional relat ions ........................................................... 63
Chapt er 5: Mainst ream t heories: Realism and Liberalism .................................... 65
Ai ms of t he chapt er ..................................................................................................... 65
Learni ng out comes ...................................................................................................... 65
Essent i al readi ng ........................................................................................................ 65
Furt her readi ng ............................................................................................................ 65
Int roduct i on ................................................................................................................ 66
Real i sm: t he basi cs ..................................................................................................... 67
What sort s of t hi ngs mi ght Real i st i deas hel p t o expl ai n? ............................................. 69
What i s Li beral i sm i n IR?.............................................................................................. 72
What mi ght Li beral i deas hel p expl ai n? ........................................................................ 75
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes .......................................................................... 77
Chapt er vocabul ary...................................................................................................... 77
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons ..................................................................................... 78
Chapt er 6: Alt ernat ive t heories: Marxism, Const ruct ivism and gender t heory .... 79
Ai ms of t he chapt er ..................................................................................................... 79
Learni ng out comes ...................................................................................................... 79
Essent i al readi ng ......................................................................................................... 79
Furt her readi ng and works ci t ed ................................................................................... 79
Int roduct i on ................................................................................................................ 80
Const ruct i vi sm ............................................................................................................. 80
Marxi sm ...................................................................................................................... 82
Post st ruct ural i sm ......................................................................................................... 83
Gender t heory ............................................................................................................. 84
What quest i ons do t hese al t ernat i ve perspect i ves address? .......................................... 86
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes .......................................................................... 88
Chapt er vocabul ary ..................................................................................................... 88
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons ..................................................................................... 88
Part 4: Cent ral problems in int ernat ional relat ions .............................................. 89
Chapt er 7: War ...................................................................................................... 91
Ai ms of t he chapt er ..................................................................................................... 91
Learni ng out comes ...................................................................................................... 91
Essent i al readi ng ......................................................................................................... 91
Cont ent s
iii
Furt her readi ng ............................................................................................................ 91
Works ci t ed ................................................................................................................. 92
Int roduct i on ................................................................................................................ 92
Wars i n t heory ............................................................................................................ 94
Wars i n part i cul ar ....................................................................................................... 96
Int rast at e wars ........................................................................................................... 99
Li beral wars ............................................................................................................... 100
Just wars: ri ght and wrong i n bat t l e ........................................................................... 101
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes ........................................................................ 104
Chapt er vocabul ary.................................................................................................... 104
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons ................................................................................... 104
Chapt er 8: Peace ................................................................................................. 105
Ai ms of t he chapt er ................................................................................................... 105
Learni ng out comes .................................................................................................... 105
Essent i al readi ng ...................................................................................................... 105
Furt her readi ng .......................................................................................................... 105
Works ci t ed ............................................................................................................... 106
Int roduct i on .............................................................................................................. 106
The meani ng of peace .............................................................................................. 107
Theori es of peace ..................................................................................................... 108
Peace t reat i es ............................................................................................................ 110
Peace movement s ..................................................................................................... 112
Peace processes ......................................................................................................... 113
A more peacef ul worl d? ............................................................................................. 115
Expl ai ni ng peace i n an age of t error .......................................................................... 116
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes ........................................................................ 117
Chapt er vocabul ary.................................................................................................... 117
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons ................................................................................... 117
Chapt er 9: The st at e ........................................................................................... 119
Ai ms of t he chapt er ................................................................................................... 119
Learni ng out comes .................................................................................................... 119
Essent i al readi ng ....................................................................................................... 119
Furt her readi ng .......................................................................................................... 119
Works ci t ed ............................................................................................................... 120
Int roduct i on .............................................................................................................. 120
The ri se of t he soverei gn st at e ................................................................................... 121
Peace of West phal i a ................................................................................................. 122
St at e success ............................................................................................................ 124
Non-st at e act ors ....................................................................................................... 127
Probl ems wi t h soverei gn st at es ................................................................................. 130
Securi t y and t he st at e ................................................................................................ 131
The cont i nui ng i mport ance of t he st at e ...................................................................... 132
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes ........................................................................ 132
Chapt er vocabul ary.................................................................................................... 133
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons ................................................................................... 133
Chapt er 10: Power ............................................................................................. 135
Ai ms of t he chapt er ................................................................................................... 135
Learni ng out comes .................................................................................................... 135
Essent i al readi ng ...................................................................................................... 135
Furt her readi ng .......................................................................................................... 135
Works ci t ed ............................................................................................................... 136
Int roduct i on .............................................................................................................. 137
The concept of power ............................................................................................... 137
Geography as power.................................................................................................. 139
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
i v
Rel at i ve power .......................................................................................................... 140
Aut hori t y, sof t power and smart power ..................................................................... 141
Europe: t he l i mi t ed superpower ................................................................................. 143
Ameri ca and t he uni pol ar moment ............................................................................. 145
Uni pol ar i n t heory, i mperi al i n pract i ce ....................................................................... 146
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes ........................................................................ 147
Chapt er vocabul ary.................................................................................................... 147
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons ................................................................................... 148
Part 5: Challenges t o int ernat ional order ........................................................... 149
Chapt er 11: The new world of securit y .............................................................. 151
Ai ms of t he chapt er ................................................................................................... 151
Learni ng out comes .................................................................................................... 151
Essent i al readi ng ....................................................................................................... 151
Furt her readi ng .......................................................................................................... 151
Works ci t ed ............................................................................................................... 152
Int roduct i on .............................................................................................................. 152
Cl i mat e change ......................................................................................................... 152
Heal t h ...................................................................................................................... 154
Resources ................................................................................................................. 155
Energy securi t y ......................................................................................................... 157
Demographi cs .......................................................................................................... 158
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes ........................................................................ 159
Chapt er vocabul ary.................................................................................................... 159
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons ................................................................................... 159
Chapt er 12: Global governance and int ernat ional organisat ions ...................... 161
Ai ms of t he chapt er ................................................................................................... 161
Learni ng out comes .................................................................................................... 161
Essent i al readi ng ....................................................................................................... 161
Furt her Readi ng ........................................................................................................ 161
Int roduct i on .............................................................................................................. 162
The Uni t ed Nat i ons .................................................................................................... 163
The Nort h At l ant i c Treat y Organi zat i on ....................................................................... 165
The Worl d Bank and t he Int ernat i onal Monet ary Fund ................................................ 166
The Int ernat i onal At omi c Energy Agency ..................................................................... 168
Regi onal organi sat i ons .............................................................................................. 170
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes ........................................................................ 171
Chapt er vocabul ary.................................................................................................... 172
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons ................................................................................... 172
Chapt er 13: Case st udy: t he deat h of t he West and t he rise of t he East ? .......... 173
Ai m of t he chapt er ..................................................................................................... 173
Learni ng out comes .................................................................................................... 173
Int roduct i on .............................................................................................................. 173
Case st udy: t he deat h of t he West and t he ri se of t he East ? ........................................ 174
A remi nder of your l earni ng out comes ........................................................................ 180
Sampl e exami nat i on quest i ons ................................................................................... 181
Appendix 1: Sample examinat ion paper ............................................................ 183
Appendix 2: Sample Examiners’ comment aries ................................................. 185
World map: Provi ded f or t he act i vi t i es on pp.83 and 140 © 2010-GEOATLAS.com
v
Acknowl edgement s
Acknowledgement s
First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr Nick Kitchen and
Dr Adam Quinn – former Phd students of mine at the London School of
Ecomomics and Political Science (LSE) – for suggesting some useful ways
forward when I set out to write this course. Second, a very special vote of
thanks must go to all of the LSE team who navigated this course through
some very tricky editorial waters. Finally, I would like to thank Richard
Campanaro – another great LSE doctoral student – whose insights and
inputs have proved indispensable throughout.
Michael Cox, LSE
November 2011
Not es
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
vi
Int roduct i on
1
I nt roduct ion
Of all the students of the social sciences taught in universities,
those concerned with IR probably encounter the greatest degree
of misunderstanding and ignorance, and engage in more ground-
clearing, conceptual, factual and ethical, than any other.
Halliday, F. Rethinking international relations.
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1994) p.5
I nt roduct ion t o t he subject area
Students of this new course are bound to ask the question – what exactly
is IR? What distinguishes it from history or law, economics or political
science? When did IR emerge as an academic subject? How has it changed
over time? What does IR contribute to the sum of human knowledge? And
why has it become one of the most popular twenty-first century social
sciences, despite the fact that – according to Halliday at least – IR students
have to spend more time than most defending and defining their subject?
The purpose of this course is to try and answer these questions while
providing you with a foundation for some of the more specialised IR topics
that you may choose to study in the coming years. We will look in some
detail at both the real world problems which IR addresses, and some of
the essential theories it employs to understand the international system.
This course does not presuppose a specialised knowledge of international
affairs. On the other hand, it does assume that you will have a genuine
interest in world politics and a willingness to expand your knowledge
of geography and key moments in international history. This course is
therefore a roadmap and guide to complex issues. Rather than trying to
be exhaustive, it seeks to introduce you to a wide range of issues and
problems that have preoccupied writers, scholars and policy-makers for
many decades – even centuries. Instead of arguing in favour of a specific
approach or pointing to an absolute truth in IR, this course will ask you
to think about international events in a systematic and critical fashion,
coming to well-reasoned conclusions based on a combination of empirical
observation and theoretical rigour. The aim, in other words, is to inform
and stimulate and, in so doing, to get you to ask questions and think of
answers that you may never have thought of before.
Syllabus
This course examines the evolution of IR and the international systems
it describes, focusing especially on ways in which social structures bring
order to our otherwise anarchic international society. In doing so it
considers: the evolution of IR in practice and theory during the twentieth
century; the impact of international history on the development of the
discipline prior to 1919; the end of the Cold War and the failure of IR to
predict this epochal shift; the nature of globalisation and its influence on
the discipline’s main theories and concepts; the similarities and differences
between mainstream approaches to IR; the alternatives presented by
some of the discipline’s newer theoretical schools; the difficulties implicit
in defining and limiting war between and within states; the contentious
place of peace in international society; the role and responsibilities of the
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
2
state as one actor among many in the international system; our changing
understanding of international power; the impact of globalisation and
the end of the Cold War on actors’ definitions of security; the difficulties
of global governance in an anarchic international society; and the likely
impact of Asia’s (especially China’s) rise on the units, processes and
structures of the international system.
Aims of t his course
This course aims to:
• explore the evolution of the discipline of IR over the past century by
examining our changing understandings of order within the anarchic
international system
• consider the impact of major historical events on the evolution of
academic IR, including the ongoing impact of globalisation
• introduce you to a range of theoretical tools that will help you to
examine the behaviour of international actors and the nature of
international systems
• define and discuss some of the main concepts within the discipline,
including war, peace, the state and power
• critically assess challenges facing contemporary international society,
including security, global governance and the rise of East Asian actors.
Learning out comes
At the end of the course, and having completed the Essential reading and
activities, you should be able to:
• explain the relevance of key terms in IR
• identify the strengths and weaknesses of IR’s various theoretical
approaches
• analyse international events from a variety of theoretical viewpoints
• describe the nature of units and social structures within the
contemporary international system.
The st ruct ure of t his guide
Chapters in this subject guide follow a standard format. Each begins by
listing the aims and the learning outcomes that you are meant to achieve
by the chapter’s end. Read these carefully and keep them in mind as you
work your way through the course material. International relations (IR),
like many academic subjects, is too vast to cover in a single course. The
learning outcomes will help you to focus on the main topics selected for
that chapter.
Next, you will find the chapter’s Essential reading. The vast majority of this
will be from the textbook (see Essential reading below), with a few selected
journal articles that you will be able to access via the Online Library in
the Student Portal (see Overview of learning resources below). You will
be prompted to read these as you work through the subject guide so wait
until you reach the appropriate section. Along with each reading is a set of
questions or activities designed to help you to connect with the material.
Next, you will find a list of Further reading, mainly scholarly articles
that address specific points raised in the text. These should be read once
you have worked your way through the entire chapter and will give
Int roduct i on
3
you additional sources from which to draw as you prepare essays and
examination questions.
Throughout this subject guide, you will find key terms highlighted in bold
and summarised at the end of each chapter. Note these terms down in
a glossary. Many terms used by IR scholars are contested. That is to say,
there is no single agreed-upon definition that you can memorise and use
every time a word comes up. Keep track of how different thinkers use
the vocabulary that you are learning. As you will discover, language is a
powerful tool in IR and it is well-worth investing your time to understand
its multiple meanings.
Chapters also include several activities that are designed to help you
to think through important points covered in the subject guide. These
should be completed as you work your way through the course. Unless
otherwise stated, all reading for the activities is taken from,
the textbook. Chapters conclude with a set of sample examination
questions. You should try to answer each of these in a short essay of
between 500 and 1,000 words. Your answers can be shared with peers and
an academic moderator on the VLE, where the questions will also form the
basis for a set of podcasts by LSE academics.
Overview of learning resources
The subject guide
Part 1 of this course provides a brief overview of how IR first came into
being as an academic subject. It examines the influence of the First and
Second World Wars on the discipline, as well as the ways in which the Cold
War affected its evolution, covering the period from 1914 to around 1989.
The first chapter covers a lot of ground, including your first thumbnail
sketches of several important IR theories. Take your time with these. As we
will discuss at several points in this subject guide, theories are simplifying
devices that we use in IR to draw general conclusions from a limited
number of examples. Different theories answer different kinds of questions
and emphasise different kinds of IR, so do not waste your time trying to
decide which theory is absolutely correct. Just as different jobs around the
house require different tools, different questions in IR also require different
theories. Relying on one to the exclusion of all others is rather like a
plumber arriving at your home armed with a single screwdriver!
Part 2 provides a theoretically-informed history of contemporary IR,
including the development of important concepts such as the international
system and international society. Its chapters each focus on one of three
key episodes: Europe’s imperial expansion and global dominance between
1500 and 1914 (Chapter 2), the end of the Cold War between 1989
and 1991 (Chapter 3) and the subsequent rise of globalisation (Chapter
4). The intervening years, 1914 to 1989, are covered in Chapter 1. The
historical material in Part 2 plays a double role. First, it contextualises
the changing world of contemporary IR, providing you with a set of
historical cases that can be used to support your opinions and analysis.
Second, it gives you the opportunity to see how different theories can be
used to produce different interpretations of any given event. Chapter 2 is
particularly important in this respect, as it introduces you to the main idea
behind the English School of IR – international society.
In Part 3 we ‘go theoretical’ by examining other key IR theories in more
depth. Here we point out, among other things, that theories have practical
applications and should not be indulged in for their own sake. Chapter
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
4
5 looks at two mainstream approaches to the subject: Liberalism and
Realism. Chapter 6 examines several alternative theories in the IR toolbox.
These highlight different aspects of IR than their orthodox counterparts,
often with the goal of unmasking people, units, processes or structures
that orthodox theories tend to ignore.
In Part 4, we look at some of the key concepts around which IR debates
still revolve: war, peace, the state and power. These are central to the
study of IR, and are all too often presented as highly abstract. We will try
to show why IR needs these concepts, and how they can be used to make
sense of the real world.
Part 5 will conclude by examining three of the key challenges facing
the world: new security threats facing international society, the role
of international organisations in global governance, and the changing
distribution of power and influence between the West and the East. The
final chapter will conclude by looking at three interrelated questions:
1. Is the USA in decline after having enjoyed unrivalled dominance since
the collapse of the USSR?
2. Are there other great powers out there – most obviously China – willing,
and able, to replace the USA at the head of the international table?
3. Does the increasing influence of emerging powers indicate a more
general decline of the West and the rise of what is loosely called the
‘East’?
These have been much talked about since the beginning of the new
millennium. If analyses of the eastward shift are accurate – as many
seem to believe – it represents a massive change in world politics. If, on
the other hand, the decline of the West, or the rise of the East, has been
overstated, our world will see power and decision making remain in the
hands of the same combination of largely Western states that have sat at
the centre of international society for the past 500 years. Your job at the
end of the course will be to assess these arguments both on their empirical
merits and by examining the theoretical assumptions on which they rest.
Essent ial reading
This guide has been written to work alongside the textbook for this course:
Baylis, J., S. Smith and P. Owens The globalization of world politics: an
introduction to international relations. (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010) fifth edition [ ISBN 9780199569090] .
As you work your way through the next 13 chapters, you will be prompted
to read specific sections from the textbook. Unless otherwise stated,
all Essential reading for this guide comes from this textbook.
Only chapter titles will therefore be provided. The textbook contains a
fairly extensive glossary which will be of use.
Detailed reading references in this guide refer to the edition of the textbook
listed above. A new edition may have been published by the time you study
this course. You can use a more recent edition of the book; use the detailed
chapter and section headings and the index to identify relevant readings.
Also check the VLE regularly for updated guidance on readings.
You can also access the following book via the Introduction to
international relations page of the virtual learning environment (VLE):
Griffiths, M., T. O’Callaghan and S.C. Roach International relations: the key
concepts. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007) second edition
[ ISBN 9780415774376] .
Int roduct i on
5
The following articles are also Essential reading and are available on the
Online Library:
Galtung, J. ‘Violence, peace and peace research’, J ournal of Peace Research 6(3)
1969, pp.166–91.
Hirst, P. ‘The Eighty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1999 – power’, Review of Additional
International Studies 24(5) 1998, pp.133–48.
Furt her reading
General overview
Brown, C. and K. Ainley Understanding international relations. (London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) fourth edition [ ISBN 9780230213111] . A
concise, if somewhat advanced, text, focusing on the relationship between
international relations theories and twentieth-century events.
Burchill, S., Linklater A, Devetak R et al. Theories of international
relations. (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2009) fourth edition [ ISBN
9780230219236] . An edited volume with individual chapters that deal with
the major theoretical approaches to the study of international relations.
Cox, M. and D. Stokes (eds) US foreign policy. (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2012) second edition [ ISBN 9780199585816] . An edited volume with
chapters by leading thinkers in the field, covering all aspects of US foreign
policy including its relationships with the different regions of the world.
Dunne, T., M. Cox and K. Booth (eds) The Eighty Years’ Crisis: international
relations 1919–1999. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)
[ ISBN 9780521667838] . A comprehensive edited volume examining the
influence of twentieth-century events on the development of IR.
Halliday, F. Rethinking international relations. (London: MacMillan, 1994)
[ ISBN 9780333589052] . A concise, well-written, and thought provoking
introduction to the study of IR, covering a broad range of approaches,
debates, and historical events.
Please note that as long as you read the Essential reading you are then free
to read around the subject area in any text, paper or online resource. You
will need to support your learning by reading as widely as possible and by
thinking about how these principles apply in the real world. To help you
read extensively, you have free access to the VLE and University of London
Online Library (see below).
Other useful texts for this course include:
Books
Adler, E. ‘Condition(s) of peace’ in Dunne, T., Cox, M. and Booth, K. The Eighty
Years’ Crisis: international relations 1919–1999. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999) [ ISBN 9780521667838] .
Brown, C. ‘Reimagining international society and global community’ in Held,
D. and A. McGrew Globalization theory: approaches and controversies.
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007) [ ISBN 9780745632117] .
Bull, H. ‘War and international order’ in Bull, H. The anarchical society.
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002) third edition
[ ISBN 9780333985878] .
Buzan, B. and R. Little ‘Beyond Westphalia? Capitalism after the “fall”’ in Cox,
M., K. Booth and T. Dunne The Interregnum: controversies in world politics
1989–1999. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)
[ ISBN 9780521785099] . Note: this is the book form of a special issue of the
Review of International Studies 25(5) 1999.
Buzan, B. and R. Little ‘Units in the modern international system’ in Buzan,
B. and R. Little International systems in world history. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000) [ ISBN 9780198780656] .
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
6
Cabalerro-Anthony, M. ‘The new world of security: implications for human
security and international security cooperation’ in Beeson, M. and N. Bisley
Issues in 21st century world politics. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)
[ ISBN 9780230594524] .
Campbell, D. ‘On dangers and their interpretation’ in Campbell, D. Writing
security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1998) [ ISBN 9780816631445] .
Cox, M. ‘Introduction’ in Carr, E.H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis. Edited by M. Cox.
(New York: Palgrave, 2001) [ ISBN 9780333963777] .
Darwin, J. ‘The Eurasian revolution’ in Darwin, J. Tamerlane: the global history
of empire. (London: Penguin Books, 2007) [ ISBN 9781596913936] .
Doyle, M. ‘A more perfect union? The liberal peace and the challenge of
globalization’ in Booth, K. T. Dunne, and M. Cox How might we live? Global
ethics in the new century. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)
[ ISBN 9780521005203] .
Gellner, E. Plough, book and sword: the structure of human history. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1988) [ ISBN 9780226287027] .
Griffiths, M. ‘Introduction: conquest, coexistence and IR theory’ in Griffiths,
M. Rethinking international relations theory. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011)
[ ISBN 9780230217799] .
Halliday, Fred ‘A necessary encounter: historical materialism and international
relations’ in Halliday, F. Rethinking International Relations. (London,
MacMillan, 1994) [ ISBN: 0774805080] .
Hammerstad, A. ‘Population movement and its impact on world politics’ in
Beeson, M. and N. Bisley Issues in 21st century world politics. (London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) [ ISBN 9780230594524] .
Held, D. and A. McGrew ‘Globalization and the end of the old order’ in Cox, M.,
T. Dunne and K. Booth Empires, systems and states: great transformations in
international politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) [ ISBN
9780521016865] Note: this is the book form of a special issue of the Review
of International Studies 27(5) 2001.
Higgott, R. ‘Contested globalization: the changing context and normative
challenges’ in Booth, K., T. Dunne and M. Cox How might we live? Global
ethics in the new century. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)
[ ISBN 9780521005203] .
Higgott, R. ‘Governing the global economy: multilateral economic institutions’
in Beeson, M. and N. Bisley Issues in 21st century world politics. (London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) [ ISBN 9780230594524] .
Holsti, K.J. ‘Scholarship in an era of anxiety: the study of international politics
during the Cold War’ in Dunne, T., M. Cox and K. Booth The Eighty Years’
Crisis: international relations 1919–1999. (Cambridge University Press,
1998) [ ISBN 9780521667838] .
Krasner, S. ‘Rethinking the sovereign state model’ in Cox, M., T. Dunne and K.
Booth Empires, systems and states. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2002) [ ISBN 9780521016865] Note: this is the book form of a special issue
of the Review of International Studies 27(5) 2001.
Krasner, S. Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy. (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1999) [ ISBN 9780691007113] . Note: especially Chapter 1, pp.3–42.
McNeill, W.H. The rise of the West: a history of the human community. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1992) [ ISBN 9780226561417] .
Meadwell, H. ‘The long nineteenth century in Europe: reinterpreting the
concert system’ in Cox, M., Dunne, T. and Booth, K. Empires, systems
and states: great transformations in international politics. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002) [ ISBN 9780521016865] . Note: this is
the book form of a special issue of the Review of International Studies 27(5)
2001.
Morris, I. ‘The Western age’ in Morris, I. Why the West rules – for now: the
patterns of history, and what they reveal about the future. (London: Profile
Books, 2011) [ ISBN 9781846682087] .
Int roduct i on
7
Organski, A.F. et al ‘Power transition theory tested in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries’ in Abdollohian M., C. Alsharabati, B. Efird et al. Power
transitions: strategies for the 21st century. (Chatham House: Seven
Bridges Press, 2000) [ ISBN 9781889119434] .
Roberts, J.M. ‘The European world hegemony’ in Roberts, J.M. The new Penguin
history of the world. (London: Penguin Books, 2007) fifth edition
[ ISBN 9780141030425] .
Parmar, I. and M. Cox (eds) US foreign policy and soft power: theoretical,
historical and contemporary perspectives. (London: Routledge, 2010)
[ ISBN 9780415492041] .
Scheurman, W.E. ‘Why (almost) everything you learned about Realism is
wrong’ in Scheurman, W.E. The Realist case for global reform. (Cambridge:
Polity Press, 2011) [ ISBN 9780745650302] .
Sheehan, J. The monopoly of violence: why Europeans hate going to war.
(London: Faber, 2008) [ ISBN9780571220854] . Note: especially Part III,
‘States without war’ pp.147–221.
Sorsensen, G. ‘International relations theory after the Cold War’ in Dunne, T.,
M. Cox and K. Booth (eds) The Eighty Years’ Crisis: international relations
1919–1999. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)
[ ISBN 9780521667838] .
Tilly, C. Coercion, capital and European states AD 990–1990. (Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell, 1992) second edition [ ISBN 9781557863683] .
Umbach, F. ‘Energy security and world politics’ in Beeson, M. and N. Bisley
Issues in 21st century world politics. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)
[ ISBN 9780230594524] .
Wallace, W. ‘Europe after the Cold War: interstate order or post-sovereign
regional order’ in Cox, M., K. Booth, and T. Dunne The Interregnum:
controversies in world politics 1989–1999. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000) [ ISBN 9780521785099] . Note: this is the book form
of a special issue of the Review of International Studies 25(5) 1999.
Waltzer, M. J ust and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations.
(London: Basic Books, 2006) [ ISBN 9780465037070] .
Weiss, L. ‘Globalization and national governance: antinomies or
interdependence’ in Cox, M., K. Booth and T. Dunne The interregnum:
controversies in world politics 1989–1999. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000) [ ISBN 9780521785099] Note: This is the book form
of a special issue of the Review of International Studies 25(5) 1999.
Journal art icles
‘Beyond hypocrisy? Sovereignty revisited’ Special issue of International Politics
46(6) 2009, pp.657–752.
Adler, E. ‘Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics’, European
J ournal of International Relations 3(3) 1997, pp.319–63.
Armstrong, D. ‘Globalization and the social state’, Review of International
Studies 24(4) 1998, pp.461–78.
Ashworth, L. ‘Did the Realist-Idealist debate ever take place?: a revisionist
history of international relations’, International Relations 16(1) 2002,
pp.33–51.
Ayres, R.W. ‘A world flying apart? Violent nationalist conflict and the end of the
Cold War’, J ournal of Peace Research 37(1) 2000, pp.105–17.
Ba, A. and M. Hoffman ‘Making and remaking the world for IR101: a resource
for teaching social constructivism in introductory classes’, International
Studies Perspectives 4(1) 2002, pp.15–33.
Baldwin, D. ‘Power analysis and world politics’, World Politics 31(2) 1979,
pp.161–94.
Bellamy, A.J. ‘Is the war on terror just?’, International Relations 19(5) 2005,
pp.275–96.
Bennett, A. ‘The guns that didn’t smoke: ideas and the Soviet non-use of force
in 1989’, J ournal of Cold War Studies 7(2) 2005, pp.81–109.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
8
Brooks, S. and W. Wohlforth ‘Power, globalization and the end of the Cold War: re-
evaluating a landmark case for the study of ideas’, International Security 25(3)
2000–1, pp.5–54.
Bull, H. ‘International theory: the case for a classical approach’, World Politics 18(3)
1966, pp.20–38.
Buzan, B. ‘A leader without followers? The United States in world politics after
Bush’, International Politics 45 2008, pp.554–70.
Buzan, B. ‘A world order without superpowers: decentred globalism’, International
Relations 25(1) 2011, pp.3–25.
Buzan, B. and R. Little ‘Why international relations has failed as an intellectual
project and what to do about it’, Millennium 30(1) 2001, pp.19–39.
Cha, V.D. ‘Globalization and the study of international security’, J ournal of Peace
Research 37(3), 2000, pp.391–403.
Checkel, J.T. ‘The constructivist turn in international relations theory’, World Politics
50(1) 1998, pp.324–48.
Collins, R. ‘Explaining the anti-Soviet revolution by state breakdown theory and
geopolitical theory’, International Politics 48(4/5) 2011, pp.575–90.
Cox, M. ‘Another transatlantic split?’ American and European narratives and the
end of the Cold War’, Cold War History 7(1) 2007, pp.121–46.
Cox, M. ‘Is the United States in decline – again?’, International Affairs 83(4) 2007,
pp.643–53.
Cox, M. ‘Power shift and the death of the West? Not yet!’, European Political Science
10(3) 2011, pp.416–24.
Cox, M. ‘The uses and abuses of history: the end of the Cold War and Soviet
collapse’, International Politics 48(4/5) 2011, pp.627–46.
Cox, M. ‘Why did we get the end of the Cold War wrong?’, British J ournal of Politics
and International Relations 11(2) 2009, pp.161–76.
de Alcantara, C.H. ‘Uses and abuses of the concept of governance’, International
Social Science J ournal 50(155) 1998, pp.105–13.
Deudney, D. ‘The case against linking environmental degradation and national
security’, Millennium 19(3) 1990, pp.461–76.
Deudney. D. and G.J. Ikenberry ‘The international sources of Soviet change’,
International Security 13(3) 1991/2, pp.74–118.
Dodge, T. ‘The ideological roots of failure: the application of kinetic neo-liberalism
to Iraq’, International Affairs 86(6) 2010, pp.1269–86.
Dorussen, H. and H. Ward ‘Trade networks and the Kantian peace’, J ournal of Peace
Research 47(1) 2010, pp.29–42.
Dupont, A. ‘The strategic implications of climate change’, Survival 50(3) 2008,
pp.29–54.
English, R.D. ‘Merely an above-average product of the Soviet Nomenklatura?
Assessing leadership in the Cold War’s end’, International Politics 48(4/5) 2011,
pp.607–26.
Falkner, R., S. Hannes and J. Vogler ‘International climate policy after Copenhagen:
towards a ‘building blocks’ approach’, Global Policy 1(3) 2010, pp.252–62.
Ferguson, N. ‘Empire falls’. Vanity Fair (October 2006) www.vanityfair.com/politics/
features/2006/10/empire200610
Ferguson, N. ‘Sinking globalization’, Foreign Affairs 84(2) 2005, pp.64–77.
Freedman, L. ‘The age of liberal wars’, Review of International Studies 31(S1) 2005,
pp.93–107.
Gaddis, J.L. ‘The long peace: elements of stability in the post-war international
system’, International Security 10(4) 1986, pp.92–142.
Garrett, G. ‘Global markets and national politics: collision course or virtuous
circle?’, International Organization 52(4) 1998, pp.787–824.
Glaser, C. ‘Will China’s rise lead to war?’, Foreign Affairs 90(2) 2011, pp.80–91.
Grader, S., ‘The English School of international relations: evidence and evaluation’,
Review of International Studies 14(1) 1988, pp.29–44.
Haas, M.L. ‘A geriatric peace? The future of US power in a world of aging
populations’, International Security 32(1) 2007, pp.112–47.
Int roduct i on
9
Halliday, Fred ‘International relations: is there a new agenda?’, Millennium 20(1)
1991, pp.57–72.
Hill, C., ‘1939: the origins of liberal realism’, Review of International Studies 15(4)
1989, pp.319–28.
Hindness, B. ‘On three dimensional power’, Political Studies 24(3) 1976, pp.229–
333.
Hoge, J.F. ‘A global power shift in the making’, Foreign Affairs 83(4) 2004, pp.2–7.
Homer-Dixon, T. ‘Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: evidence from
cases’, International Security 19(1) 1994, pp.5–40.
Homer-Dixon, T. ‘On the threshold: environmental changes as causes of acute
conflict’, International Security 16(2) 1991, pp.76–116.
Horborn, L. and P. Wallensteen ‘Armed conflict, 1989–2006’, J ournal of Peace
Research 44(5) 2007, pp.623–34.
Houweling, H. and J.G. Stevens ‘Power transition as a cause of war’, J ournal of
Conflict Resolution 32(1) 1998, pp.87–102.
Ikenberry, G.J. ‘A crisis of global governance’, Current History 109(730) 2010,
pp.315–21.
Ikenberry, G.J. ‘The future of the liberal world order internationalism after
America’, Foreign Affairs 90(3) 2011, pp.56–68.
James, A. ‘The practice of sovereign statehood in contemporary international
society’, Political Studies 47(3) 1999, pp.457–73.
Jellisen, S.M. and F.M. Gottheil ‘Marx and Engels: in praise of globalization’,
Contributions to Political Economy 28(1) 2009, pp.35–46.
Kagan, R. ‘Power and weakness’, Policy Review 113 2002. http://homepage.univie.
ac.at/Vedran.Dzihic/Kagan.pdf
Kaysen, C. ‘Is war obsolete?’ International Security 14(4) 1990, pp.42–64.
Kennedy, P. ‘The First World War and the international power system’, International
Security 9(1) 1984, pp.7–40.
Keohane, R.O. and J.S. Nye ‘Globalization, what’s new? What’s not? (And so
what?)’, Foreign Policy 118 2000, pp.104–19.
Khong, Y.F. ‘War and international theory: a commentary on the state of the art’,
Review of International Studies 10(1) 1984, pp.41–63.
Kivimaki, T. ‘The long peace of ASEAN’, J ournal of Peace Research 37(5) 2000,
pp.635–49.
Knutsen, T.L. ‘A lost generation? IR scholarship before World War I’, International
Politics 45(6) 2008, pp.650–74.
Korf, B. ‘Resources, violence and the telluric geographies of small wars’, Progress in
Human Geography 35(6) 2011, pp.733–56.
Krahmann, E. ‘National, regional and global governance: one phenomenon or
many? Global Governance 9(3) 2003, pp.323–46.
Layne, C. ‘Impotent power? Re-examining the nature of America’s hegemonic
power?’, The National Interest 85 2006, pp.41–47.
Le Billon, P. ‘The geopolitical economy of “resource wars”’, Geopolitics 9(1) 2004,
pp.1–28.
Lebow, R.N. ‘The long peace, the end of the Cold War and the failure of realism’,
International Organization 48(2) 1994, pp.249–77.
Levy, M. ‘Is the environment a national security issue?’, International Security 20(2)
1995, pp.35–62.
Little, R. ‘The English School vs. American Realism: a meeting of minds or divided
by a common language?’, Review of International Studies 29(3) 2003, pp.443–
60.
Mann, M. ‘Has globalization ended the rise and rise of the nation state?’, Review of
International Political Economy 4(3) 1997, pp.472–96.
Moravcik, A. ‘Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international
politics’, International Organization 51(4) 1997, pp.513–53.
Morton, A. ‘New follies on the state of the globalization debate’, Review of
International Studies 30(1) 2004, pp.133–47.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
10
Osiander, A ‘Sovereignty, international relations and the Westphalian myth’,
International Organization 55(2) 2001, pp.251–87.
Osiander, A. ‘Rereading early 20th century IR theory: idealism revisited’,
International Studies Quarterly 42(3) 1998, pp.409–32.
Pang, T. and G.E. Guindo ‘Globalization and risks to health’ Science & Society,
EMBO Reports 5(1) 2004, pp.S11–16 www.nature.com/embor/journal/v5/n1s/
full/7400226.html
Pelletier, N. ‘Of laws and limits: an ecological economic perspective on redressing
the failure of contemporary global environmental governance’, Global
Environmental Change 20(2) 2010, pp.220–28.
Risse, T. ‘Ideas, discourse power and the end of the Cold War: 20 years on’,
International Politics 48(4/5) 2011, pp.591–606.
Rosenberg, J. ’Globalization theory: a post-mortem’, International Politics 42(1)
2005, pp.3–74.
Schmidt, B. ‘Anarchy, world politics and the birth of a discipline’, International
Relations 16(1) 2002, pp.9–32.
Schmidt, B. ‘Lessons from the past: reassessing interwar disciplinary history of
international relations’, International Studies Quarterly 42(3) 1998, pp.433–59.
Schmidt, B. ‘Political science and the American Empire: a disciplinary history
of the “politics” section and the discourse of imperialism and colonialism’,
International Politics 45(6) 2008, pp.675–87.
Scholte, J.A. ‘Global capitalism and the state’, International Affairs 73(3) 1997,
pp.427–52.
Schroeder, P.W. ‘The 19th century international system: changes in the structure’,
World Politics 39(1) 1986, pp.1–26.
Schweller, R. and W. Wohlforth ‘Power test: updating Realism in response to the
end of the Cold War’, Security Studies 9(3) 2000, pp.60–108.
Singer, P.W. ‘Corporate warriors: the rise of privatized military industry and its
ramifications for international security’, International Security 26(3) 2001–2,
pp.186–220.
Singh, R. ‘The exceptional empire: why the United States will not decline – again’,
International Politics 45 2008, pp.571–93.
Smith, S. ‘The discipline of international relations: still an American social science’,
British J ournal of Politics and International Relations 2(3) 2000, pp.374–402.
Smith, S. ‘The United States and the discipline of international relations:
hegemonic country, hegemonic discipline’, International Studies Review 4(2)
2002, pp.67–85.
Snyder, J. ‘The domestic political logic of Gorbachev’s new thinking in foreign
policy’, International Politics 48(4/5) 2011, pp.562–74.
Sofka, J.R. `The eighteenth century international system: parity or primacy?’,
Review of International Studies 27(2) 2001, pp.147–63.
Sterling-Folcker, J. ‘Realism and the constructivist challenge’, International Studies
Review 4(1) 2002, pp.73–100.
Strange, S. ‘The westfailure system’, Review of International Studies 25(3) 1999,
pp.345–54.
Suganami, H. ‘Explaining war: some critical observations’, International Relations
16(3) 2002, pp.307–26.
Tickner, J.A. ‘You just don’t understand: troubled engagements between feminism and
IR theorists’, International Studies Quarterly 41(4) 1997, pp.611–32.
Van Evera, S. ‘Offense, defence, and the causes of war’, International Security 22(4)
1997, pp.5–43.
Van Ham, P. ‘The power of war: why Europe needs it’, International Politics 47(6)
2010, pp.574–95.
Waever, O. ‘The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and
European developments in international relations’, International Organization
52(4) 1998, pp.687–727.
Walt, S.M. ‘International relations: one world, many theories’, Foreign Policy 110
1998, pp.29–47.
Int roduct i on
11
Weiss, L. ‘Globalization and the myth of the powerless state’, New Left Review 225
1997, pp.3–27.
Wendt, A. ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power
politics’, International Organisation 46(2) 1992, pp.391–425.
White, D.H. ‘The nature of world power in American history: an evaluation at the
end of World War II’, Diplomatic History 11(3) 1984, pp.181–202.
Williams, M. ‘The empire writes back (to Michael Cox)’, International Affairs
83(5) 2007, pp.945–50.
Wohlforth, William ‘No one loves a Realist explanation’, International Politics
48(4/5) 2011, pp.441–59.
Youngs, G. ‘From practice to theory: feminist international relations and “gender
mainstreaming”’, International Politics 45(6) 2008, pp.688–702.
Online st udy resources
In addition to the subject guide and the Essential reading, it is crucial that
you take advantage of the study resources that are available online for this
course, including the VLE and the Online Library.
You can access the VLE, the Online Library and your University of London
email account via the Student Portal at: http://my.londoninternational.ac.uk
You should have received your login details for the Student Portal with
your official offer, which was emailed to the address that you gave on your
application form. You have probably already logged in to the Student Portal
in order to register! As soon as you registered, you will automatically have
been granted access to the VLE, Online Library and your fully functional
University of London email account.
If you forget your login details at any point, please email uolia.support@
london.ac.uk quoting your student number.
Making use of t he Online Library
The Online Library contains a huge array of journal articles and other
resources to help you read widely and extensively.
To access the majority of resources via the Online Library you will either
need to use your University of London Student Portal login details, or you
will be required to register and use an Athens login:
http://tinyurl.com/ollathens
The easiest way to locate relevant content and journal articles in the Online
Library is to use the Summon search engine.
If you are having trouble finding an article listed in a reading list, try
removing any punctuation from the title, such as single quotation marks,
question marks and colons.
For further advice, please see the online help pages:
www.external.shl.lon.ac.uk/summon/about.php
The virt ual learning environment
The VLE, which complements this subject guide, has been designed to
enhance your learning experience, providing additional support and a sense
of community. It forms an important part of your study experience with the
University of London and you should access it regularly.
The VLE provides a range of resources for EMFSS courses:
• Self-testing activities: Doing these allows you to test your own
understanding of subject material.
• Electronic study materials: The printed materials that you receive from
the University of London are available to download, including updated
reading lists and references.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
12
• Past examination papers and Examiners’ commentaries: These provide
advice on how each examination question might best be answered.
• A student discussion forum: This is an open space for you to discuss
interests and experiences, seek support from your peers, work
collaboratively to solve problems and discuss subject material.
• Videos: There are recorded academic introductions to the subject,
interviews and debates and, for some courses, audio-visual tutorials and
conclusions.
• Recorded lectures: For some courses, where appropriate, the sessions
from previous years’ Study Weekends have been recorded and made
available.
• Study skills: Expert advice on preparing for examinations and developing
your digital literacy skills.
• Feedback forms.
Some of these resources are available for certain courses only, but we are
expanding our provision all the time and you should check the VLE regularly
for updates.
Examinat ion advice
Important: the information and advice given here are based on the
examination structure used at the time this guide was written. Please
note that subject guides may be used for several years. Because of this
we strongly advise you to always check both the current Regulations for
relevant information about the examination, and the VLE where you
should be advised of any forthcoming changes. You should also carefully
check the rubric/instructions on the paper you actually sit and follow those
instructions.
Over the course of three hours, students must answer any four of the 12
essay questions provided. These cover the main topics in this syllabus,
and test your ability to apply the theories and concepts of IR to a range of
historical and policy-based questions. All answers should be written in the
form of an essay, with a thesis statement and supporting evidence organised
in a series of paragraphs that support your conclusions.
As you will learn throughout this course, there are very rarely any definitive
answers in IR. Theories, concepts, history and policy are contested by
students, professors and practitioners alike. As indicated in the examination
preparation material on the VLE, Examiners look for well-crafted arguments
that use conceptual tools to understand and analyse real-world events.
Before sitting your examination, be sure that you have worked through
every chapter of this subject guide. You must be familiar with the Essential
readings for each chapter. These can be supplemented with material from
the Further readings, various printed media and other literary sources. A
Sample examination paper and commentary are included at the end of this
guide.
Remember, it is important to check the VLE for:
• up-to-date information on examination and assessment arrangements for
this course
• where available, past examination papers and Examiners’ commentaries
for the course which give advice on how each question might best be
answered.
13
Part 1: Int roduct i on
Part 1: I nt roduct ion
Not es
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
14
Chapt er 1: The t went i et h cent ury ori gi ns of i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
15
Chapt er 1: The t went iet h cent ury origins
of int ernat ional relat ions
The armistices has been signed and the statesmen of the nations
will soon assemble to undertake the task of concluding the pact
of Peace which we all hope will herald in a new world, freed
from the menace of war... Old problems must be confronted in
a new spirit; insular and vested prejudices must be removed;
understanding and toleration need to be greatly developed. It
is an immense task and a myriad of agencies will be required to
discharge it. Among these must be our universities…
Major David Davies, MP, in a letter to Sir J ohn Williams, President of
the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, donating £20,000 for
the establishment of the Wilson Chair in International Politics, 1920
Aim of t he chapt er
The aim of this chapter is to:
• introduce you to the main background factors that led to the creation
and evolution of IR as an academic discipline.
Learning out comes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential reading and
activities, you should be able to:
• discuss what is meant by the ‘twenty years’ crisis’
• describe the influence of twentieth-century crises on the development
of IR
• illustrate some of the fundamental differences between Realist, Liberal,
English School and Postcolonial approaches to IR
• discuss the subjects with which IR should be concerned
• define the vocabulary terms in bold.
Essent ial reading
Baylis, J., S. Smith and P. Owens ‘Introduction’.
Cox, M. ‘From the Cold War to the world economic crisis’.
Scott, L. ‘International history 1900–1999’.
Furt her reading
Ashworth, L. ‘Did the Realist-Idealist debate ever take place?: a revisionist
history of international relations’, International Relations 16(1) 2002,
pp.33–51.
Buzan, B. and R. Little ‘Why international relations has failed as an intellectual
project and what to do about it’, Millennium 30(1) 2001, pp.19–39.
Cox, M. ‘Introduction’ in Carr, E.H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis. Edited by M. Cox.
(New York: Palgrave, 2001) [ ISBN 9780333963777] .
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
16
Halliday, Fred ‘International relations: is there a new agenda?’, Millennium
20(1) 1991, pp.57–72.
Holsti, K.J. ‘Scholarship in an era of anxiety: the study of international politics
during the Cold War’ in Dunne, T., M. Cox and K. Booth The Eighty Years’
Crisis: international relations 1919–1999. (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998) [ ISBN 9780521667838] .
Knutsen, T.L. ‘A lost generation? IR scholarship before World War I’,
International Politics 45(6) 2008, pp.650–74.
Osiander, A. ‘Rereading early 20th century IR theory: idealism revisited’,
International Studies Quarterly 42(3) 1998, pp.409–32.
Schmidt, B. ‘Anarchy, world politics and the birth of a discipline’, International
Relations 16(1) 2002, pp.9–32.
Schmidt, B. ‘Lessons from the past: reassessing interwar disciplinary history of
international relations’, International Studies Quarterly 42(3) 1998, pp.433–59.
Schmidt, B. ‘Political science and the American Empire: a disciplinary history
of the “politics” section and the discourse of imperialism and colonialism’,
International Politics 45(6) 2008, pp.675–87.
Smith, S. ‘The discipline of international relations: still an American social
science’, British J ournal of Politics and International Relations 2(3) 2000,
pp.374–402.
Smith, S. ‘The United States and the discipline of international relations:
hegemonic country, hegemonic discipline’, International Studies Review 4(2)
2002, pp.67–85.
Sorsensen, G. ‘International relations theory after the Cold War’ in Dunne, T.,
M. Cox and K. Booth (eds) The Eighty Years’ Crisis: international relations
1919–1999. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)
[ ISBN 9780521667838] .
Waever, O. ‘The sociology of a not so international discipline: American
and European developments in international relations’, International
Organization 52(4) 1998, pp.687–727.
Works cit ed
Gaddis, J. The long peace: inquiries into the history of the Cold War. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1989) [ ISBN 9780195043358] .
Hoffman, S. ‘An American social science: international relations’, Daedelus
106(3) 1977, pp.41–60.
Halliday, F. Rethinking international relations. (London: MacMillan, 1994)
[ ISBN 9780333589052] pp.1–4.
Morgenthau, H. Politics among nations. (London : McGraw-Hill Higher
Education, 2006) seventh edition [ ISBN 9780072895391] .
White, D.W. ‘The nature of world power in American history’ Diplomatic History
11(3) 1987, pp.181–202.
I nt roduct ion
Although IR is a relatively young discipline, less than a century old,
many of its most important questions and concepts have deep roots in
intellectual history. From Classical Greece to the British Empire, Ming
China to modern America, leaders, advisers, academics and students have
wrestled with problems of war, trade, culture and diplomacy. This is not
to say, however, that there is nothing new under the sun. Even those who
insist that the problems we face are more or less the same as those of
the ancients, recognise that the world has changed dramatically in terms
of its economic development, military technologies and rise of political
democracy. IR – whose ambitious goal is to understand the complex
network of social, economic and political interactions that connect
human societies – is a contradictory subject. Its first academic chair was
Chapt er 1: The t went i et h cent ury ori gi ns of i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
17
established in the early twentieth century, many years after other social
sciences, yet its fundamental questions are as old as any. IR deals with the
best and the worst of humanity: respect and hatred, cooperation and war.
These are not new debates. Look at any standard history of IR and you
can trace them through the idea of past ‘greats’: writers like Thucydides (a
Greek historian of the fifth century BC), St Thomas Aquinas (a thirteenth-
century Christian theologian), Hugo Grotius (a seventeenth-century
Dutch lawyer), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (an eighteenth-century French
philosopher) and Immanuel Kant (a German thinker writing in the shadow
of the Napoleonic wars). Though none of these men thought of themselves
as working in a subject called IR, each contributed to our understanding
of topics that have since become associated with the discipline: the causes
for war, the possibilities of peace, and the impact of trade and ideas. Their
works are the intellectual foundations upon which much of modern IR is
constructed.
The origins of int ernat ional relat ions: t he First World War
and t he int erwar years
Despite its deep intellectual roots, IR is a young discipline. For some time,
scholars have been discussing who first taught IR, where and for what
precise purpose. There is general agreement that its institutional growth
in Western universities – notably British and American – is a twentieth-
century phenomenon directly connected to the simple and terrible fact
that between 1914 and 1989 the world experienced three terrible and
protracted conflicts: the First World War, the Second World War and
the Cold War. These took tens of millions of lives, led to revolutionary
social transformations around the world, nearly eliminated whole human
populations, facilitated the rise of some great powers, and led to the demise
of others. The hugely destructive wars of this ‘bloodiest era in history’ have
been at the heart of IR since it first emerged as a taught subject after 1918.
St op and read sect ions 1 and 2 of Chapt er 3, pp.52–54
Act ivit y
Compl et e t he t abl e bel ow by l i st i ng event s f rom t he t went i et h cent ury t hat have
i nf l uenced t he devel opment of key t opi cs i n IR. Thi s l i st wi l l be usef ul when you
prepare essays and exami nat i on answers t o quest i ons on t hese t opi cs.
I R t opic Associat ed hist orical event s
Human ri ght s (Exampl e: t he Hol ocaust )
Causes of war
Rol e of economi cs i n IR
Condi t i ons f or peace
If war gave birth to academic IR, the establishment of peace was its first
mission. IR is sometimes thought of as being too pessimistic in its views
on war and peace, and too theoretical in its approach to global issues.
However, many of its key thinkers have been practical people keen to
discover tangible and morally acceptable solutions to real world problems.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
18
When David Davies, a survivor of the Western Front in the First World War,
funded the first permanent academic post in IR in the small Welsh seaside
town of Aberystwyth in 1920, he made it clear that the position was not
to be used for vague theorising. Rather, it was to help scholars engage in
practical thinking that would ‘herald in a new world freed from the menace
of war’.
As we know, Davies’ dream of peace was not realised. The end of ‘the
war to end all wars’ in 1918 did not lay the foundations for a more stable
world based on mutually-agreed rules and international organisations like
the League of Nations. This had been the hope of IR’s earliest dedicated
specialists, the intellectual forerunners of today’s Liberals. Instead, the post-
First World War settlement led to what E.H. Carr, one of the most influential
writers in the discipline, later called the twenty years’ crisis. He argued
that the settlement contained within it the seeds for an even greater conflict.
He was especially critical of the idealistic US President Woodrow Wilson.
Carr saw powerful revisionist states, dissatisfied with the status quo
created after the Great War, pushing hard to shift the balance of power
in their favour. As a seasoned British diplomat, and later as an influential
academic, Carr hoped that German and Japanese ambitions might be
contained through a strategy of diplomatic concession. The status quo, he
argued, was not sacrosanct, and ‘peaceful change’ was preferable to war.
In the end, Carr’s policy options proved to be unworkable. Germany and
Japan could not be satisfied through appeasement as he had hoped. Their
policies of conquest and expansion continued, drawing Britain and France
(in September 1939), the USSR (in June 1941) and the USA (in December
1941) into the most destructive war in history.
The post -1945 world: American hegemony and European decline
The Second World War compelled writers and statesmen to think with
greater urgency about the kind of world that had produced such appalling
aggression. It also forced policy-makers to seriously think about how such
disastrous events might be avoided once the war came to an end. Though
neither question ever saw a consensus, these turbulent times generated an
enormous amount of creative thought. Among Western powers at least,
several important lessons were learnt. First, that global security would never
be achieved so long as the international economy did not function properly.
Second, there was a need to construct some kind of reformed League of
Nations, the United Nations (UN), within which the great powers
would be given a special role and special responsibilities for maintaining
international peace and security, leading to the creation of the permanent
five (P5) within the UN Security Council. Lastly, it was believed that
the USA could not retreat into political isolationism, as it had done
following the First World War, but that it needed to remain actively engaged in
international affairs as Europe’s international influence waned.
The chances of a return to the pre-war status quo were very slim. America’s
deepening involvement and increased influence effectively ruled out any
rerun of what had happened in 1919 and 1920. Indeed, the USA had
become so powerful by 1945 that it would not have been feasible for it
to have ‘retreated’. This is rarely, if ever, what rising powers do, and it
was certainly no longer an option. Later in this course we will discuss the
notion of power and America’s use of it. Here, we only need make passing
reference to how much of this extraordinarily important commodity the USA
possessed when the guns fell silent in 1945. Never had the world witnessed
such a phenomenon. By 1945, every other great power – winners and losers
alike – was in a state of severe disrepair, barely able to recover from a war
Chapt er 1: The t went i et h cent ury ori gi ns of i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
19
that had left their societies in ruins. This included the USSR, which had
lost over 25 million of its citizens. The USA, meanwhile, had never been
in better economic and military heath, accounting for nearly 60% of the
world’s economic wealth, over 50% of its research and development, 70%
of its naval tonnage, and the lion’s share of its agricultural surpluses. The
age of the superpower had begun.
Even as the Second World War came to an end, analysts of international
politics were aware that a huge power shift was underway; one that
pointed towards the emergence of what IR would later define as a two
power, bipolar system. Bipolarity describes a distribution of power
among two great powers in the international system, and and can be
contrasted with unipolarity – with a single dominant great power – and
multipolarity – in which capabilities are divided among many great
powers. Moreover, this emerging world order would be dominated not by
European empires – still in possession of considerable assets in 1945 – but
by the United States of America and, later, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics. By 1945, military planners in Washington DC were already
wondering who the next enemy might be. Europe’s imperial power,
dominant prior to the First World War, was seen to be in decline. As the
colonial empires of the UK, France, Portugal and other European powers
disintegrated, the USA saw a need to establish new forms of economic and
political hegemony. Such was American self-confidence in the period
that many of its policy-makers discounted any threat from the USSR,
which had been economically weakened by its brutal three year war of
extermination with Germany and confronted by the atomic bomb. There
was, at first, little indication of the ‘great contest’ that was to follow.
St op and read sect ion 3 of Chapt er 3, pp.54–56
1. Whi ch came f i rst , t he decl i ne of European power i n t he i nt ernat i onal syst em, or
t he i ndependence of i t s col oni es around t he worl d?
2. Di d t he decl i ne of European i mperi al i sm mark an end t o al l f orms of hegemony i n
t he i nt ernat i onal syst em? If not , what new f orms t ook i t s pl ace?
The Cold War and t he birt h of Realism
As we now know, the high hopes born out of the US sense of its own
‘preponderance of power’ in 1945 were not realised. Very quickly, deep
differences over the future shape of Europe, the status of Germany, the
situation in China and even the future of capitalism divided the victorious
allies. The origins of the ensuing 45-year long Cold War have been hotly
debated. Some blame Soviet expansionism for causing the rift, others
the political and economic policies of the USA. The Cold War has also
been viewed as a natural consequence of competition between the two
superpowers and their opposing ideologies, with the USA and its allies
devoted to capitalist principles, while the Soviets and their allies were
wedded to their vision of state socialism.
St op and read sect ions 4 and 5 of Chapt er 3, pp.56–63
Act ivit y
In no more t han 500 words, respond t o t he quest i on bel ow. Your answer shoul d
i ncl ude a one-sent ence t hesi s st at ement t hat cl earl y st at es your posi t i on, f ol l owed by
t he mai n poi nt s on whi ch you base t hat posi t i on:
To what ext ent were t he Sovi et and Ameri can bl ocs duri ng t he Col d War si mi l ar t o t he
empi res of European st at es pri or t o t he Second Worl d War? What made t hem si mi l ar
and di f f erent ?
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
20
IR scholars have been central to discussions about the causes and
consequences of the Cold War. Then and now, many believe that the
wartime alliance between the West and the USSR was bound to fail,
not just because of the Allies’ political and economic differences, but
because that is the fate of alliances once unifying threats – in this case
Nazi Germany and imperial Japan – were overcome. Furthermore, while
both sides in the Cold War exaggerated the aggressive intentions of their
opponent, the fact remains that the larger international system was in
turmoil after the Second World War. Insecurity was the order of the day.
Nowhere was this more visible than in post-war Europe, where economic
recovery was proving difficult and the pre-war balance of power had been
overturned by the defeat of Germany and the enormous territorial gains
made by the USSR. Even if the USSR had no plans to invade Western
Europe – and there is little evidence indicating that it did – there was
every need to restore the health of European economies and the political
self-confidence of individual states. Many Western policy-makers saw no
reason to trust their Soviet counterparts. The USSR’s repressive actions
in Eastern Europe, its construction of a sphere of influence, its links with
increasingly influential communist parties in Italy and France, its closed
economy, and its brutal policies at home were seen as ample evidence that
cooperation would be impossible. This was certainly the view held by the
USA and the UK by 1946, and by early 1947 the idea was truly embedded.
The outcome of this process led to what British writer George Orwell
(1945) and American columnist Walter Lippmann (1947) called a ‘Cold
War’. This very new kind of war would be conducted in a bipolar
world where power was polarised in the hands of two nuclear-armed
superpowers. First Europe and later many other regions of the world
divided into blocs, one pro-Soviet and one pro-American. The Cold
War was to have all the features of a normal war except – it was
hoped – for direct military confrontation. Unsurprisingly, this state of
affairs had a profound impact on the way an emerging generation of
increasingly American IR scholars thought about IR. These rising thinkers
saw themselves living in dark and dangerous times, making them
extraordinarily tough minded. The vast majority of them continued to
believe that diplomacy and cooperation were possible, even essential,
in a nuclear age. Nevertheless, most were decidedly pessimistic. Having
witnessed the outbreak of two global wars, one world depression, the rise
of fascism and a confrontation with an expanded communist threat – often
equated with fascism in official US minds – many analysts of world politics
came to look at the world through a particularly dark prism born of harsh
experience.
Your f irst int ernat ional relat ions t heory: Realism
St op and read ‘Realism and world polit ics’ in t he Int roduct ion, p.4
Act ivit y
Not e down t he mai n assumpt i ons t hat Real i sm uses t o underst and t he worl d around
i t . Pay speci al at t ent i on t o who i s consi dered an i nt ernat i onal act or, why t hey act t he
way t hey do, and what ki nd of i nt ernat i onal syst em t hey i nhabi t .
The hugely influential American writer Hans J. Morgenthau, himself a
Jewish exile from Nazi Germany, set the tone for this kind of thinking in
his highly influential textbook Politics among nations (1948). Morgenthau
was neither a natural conservative, nor uncritical of US foreign policy. As
one keen on speaking ‘truth to power’ as he once put it, he had no time for
Chapt er 1: The t went i et h cent ury ori gi ns of i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
21
wishful thinking. Lessons had to be learned, and if history taught anything
it was not that we could build a better world based on new principles – as
interwar Liberals had suggested prior to the Second World War. Rather,
Morgenthau believed that we should be trying to build a more orderly
world by learning from the past. This distinction between building a better
world and a more orderly one continues to separate Liberals and Realists
to this day. The past taught Morgenthau:
• that states were driven by deep power ambitions
• that these drives were permanent features of IR
• that it was the international responsibility of the USA – as the most
powerful democracy after the Second World War – to act as a great
and responsible power, especially once confronted by a powerful Soviet
adversary.
To be fair, Morgenthau never thought that the USSR was driven by great
ideological ambitions. However, he pointed out that it controlled a land
mass stretching across 11 time zones, had a formidable army that had just
defeated Nazi Germany, and was bound to want to convert this power
into greater global influence. As a result, Morgenthau argued that the
USA had to pursue what one of his fellow Americans – the policy-maker
George F. Kennan – termed a long-term and patient containment of
Soviet ambitions. In this way, some form of stability could be restored to
the world. States might one day learn to work with each other but, for
Morgenthau and Kennan, that day lay in the distant future. For the time
being, it was better to plan for the worst case scenario on the assumption
that by doing so the worse might never come to pass.
This no-nonsense way of thinking about the world seemed logical and
sensible, and called itself Realism – surely one of the most effective
branding exercises in the social sciences. Within the Realist framework
there was room for disagreement. Some Realists did not think that the
Cold War could remain ‘cold’ forever, and would inevitably end in a
nuclear war if it went on for any length of time. Others arrived at another,
equally erroneous, conclusion: that the confrontation would never end at
all! For many, what began as a dangerous global competition gradually
evolved into what the structural Realist Kenneth Waltz regarded as an
essential stabilising element in the anarchic international system. Two
superpowers, he argues, were better than one hegemon or many great
powers in terms of creating a balanced international situation. The
Cold War simplified world politics and, in doing so, made it far more
predictable. Waltz concludes that in an international system without a
supreme ruler – an anarchic international system – the see-saw of
Cold War bipolarity was responsible for bringing some order to relations
between the superpowers. Waltz is not alone in this view. Another
American writer, the influential historian John Gaddis, argued in 1987
that the Cold War was a new form of ‘long peace’; underwritten by the
reality of nuclear mutually assured destruction (MAD), and supported by
two rationally constrained superpowers whose passing would probably
destabilise the international system they dominated. Remember, this was
before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and disintegration of the Soviet
Union two years later.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
22
Growing diversit y in I R
St op and read from t he beginning of ‘Liberalism and world polit ics’
(p.4) t o t he end of ‘Post colonialism’ (p.6) in Chapt er 1
Act ivit y
Usi ng t he l i st of Real i st assumpt i ons t hat you creat ed i n t he l ast act i vi t y, draw up a
paral l el l i st of assumpt i ons f or each of t he al t ernat i ve t heori es on pp.4– 6. Remember
t o t hi nk about key quest i ons:
• Who act s?
• Why do t hey act ?
• What ki nd of syst em shapes t hei r act i ons?
Though Realism is normally identified as the dominant tradition in IR, it
has never held the field alone. Depending on how you date it, Liberalism
predates Realism – dating back to the much-derided idealism of the
interwar years – and remains one of the discipline’s most influential
approaches. For Liberals, interdependence – mutual dependence on
one another for social and material goods – provides the best foundations
on which we can build a more peaceful world. According to supporters
of Liberalism like Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, the extraordinary
expansion of ‘trans-boundary interactions’ since the end of the Second
World War is the most obvious foundation on which to build a new
international system in a post-hegemonic age. Increasing interdependence,
they argue, means that states are not absolutely sovereign insofar as
they remain vulnerable to transnational forces. This is not to deny the
continued importance of the state and power in IR. However, in a world in
which the USA appears to be losing its capacity to lead from a position of
hegemonic strength, Liberals argue that additional means must be sought
to guarantee the stability and improvement of the international system.
Their analysis, therefore, includes an expanded set of international actors,
focusing also on the role of multinational corporations (MNCs), non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) and intergovernmental organisations
(IGOs).
Another distinct contribution to IR has been made by the English School
(ES), first developed at the London School of Economics and Political
Science. Many of its theorists accept a good deal of what Realists have
to say about power and the competitive, anarchic character of IR. At
the same time, they disagree with Realism’s claim that the international
system is a free-for-all, ‘anything goes’ arena. Realism, argues the ES,
cannot explain why states – even ones as hostile to each other as the
USA and the USSR – work together, engage in diplomacy, and thereby
generate forms of international order in an otherwise anarchic system.
Instead of accepting Realism’s Hobbesian view of IR, the ES argues
that the international system is best described as an international
society, in which actors (including states, MNCs, NGOs, etc.) are bound
together by socially-generated practices and principles. These practices
and principles – which some ES scholars call institutions – range from
bilateral and multilateral treaties (the formal institutions of international
society) to unwritten but influential principles such as sovereignty and
democracy promotion (society’s informal institutions). Both are historically
changeable, varying over time and space. In the past 50 years, European
international society has gone from being one of the world’s most unstable
and war-torn regions to one of its most tranquil. Its institutions have
evolved over time away from the use of force as a legitimate means of
Chapt er 1: The t went i et h cent ury ori gi ns of i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
23
conflict resolution. This does not mean that war in Europe is impossible,
but only that it is made less likely as an alternative means of conflict
resolution – mainly via the European Union (EU) – become available and
accepted. We will discuss the English School’s institutions at greater length
later in this guide. For now, it should suffice to note that whereas Realism
sees IR as conflictual and Liberalism sees it as cooperative, the ES leaves
the answer open. International societies can be cooperative or conflictual,
depending on when and where you look. Furthermore, institutions
evolve over time, changing the character of the international societies
that they describe. Analysing the character and evolution of international
institutions therefore remains the main object of ES research.
As the Cold War progressed, issues arose for which Realists and Liberals
had few answers. In the 1960s, a new generation of critical theorists
began to question global power structures rather than merely taking them
for granted. Few of these thinkers traced their intellectual roots directly
back to IR. The overwhelming majority were either historians of US
diplomatic history dissatisfied with standard accounts of American conduct
abroad, or radical economists with an interest in the Third World and its
discontents. Through the efforts of these thinkers, critical theories born in
other branches of the social sciences began to have a major impact on the
generation of IR scholars who entered the field in ever-larger numbers.
This includes Marxism, with its class-based analysis of global economics,
Social Constructivism, with its focus on humans’ ability to consciously
alter the principles by which the world operates, Post-structuralism, which
denies the existence of any absolute Truths on which to base analyses
of human action, and Post-colonialism, which traces the international
system’s social, economic, and political foundations back to its colonial –
and ultimately European – roots.
In a related development, the 1970s saw an upsurge of interest in what
became known as International Political Economy (IPE). This
branch of IR seeks to explain links between the international economic
and political systems. The collapse of the post-Second World War Bretton
Woods economic system in 1971, perceptions of relative US economic
decline, and a general recognition that one could not understand IR
without at least having some knowledge of the material world forced some
in IR to come to terms with economics, a branch of knowledge of which
they had hitherto been woefully ignorant. But even a little knowledge of
international economics had its advantages. For, if the US was in decline
– as some were already arguing in the 1970s – a new form of world order
had to be forged.
These challenges to Realism have risen to greater prominence since the
end of the Cold War in 1991. That said, Realism remains very much at
the heart of the discipline, particularly in the USA where it originated.
Other attempts to dethrone this academic heavyweight have met with only
limited success. Moreover, even while Realism has come under increasing
attack, the USA has become the uncontested centre of our academic
discipline. Having found a new home after the Second World War, IR has
remained what Stanley Hoffmann termed ‘an American social science’.
US resources, its ability to attract some of the best and the brightest from
Europe and farther afield, and the appearance of having influence in the
corridors of US power have made American IR look like an especially
robust animal compared to its rivals elsewhere, making the USA an
intellectual, if not political, hegemon.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
24
I nt ernat ional relat ions and t he end of t he Cold War
Ultimately, it took a seismic event to produce a widespread change in IR.
The end of the Cold War was an unexpected and almost entirely peaceful
revolution in world politics. We will look at this event in more detail in
Chapter 3. For the time being, however, we need to consider its impact on
IR as an academic discourse.
St op and read sect ion t wo of Chapt er 4, ent it led
‘The end of t he Cold War’, pp.68–69
Act ivit y
Not e down keywords i n t he readi ng t hat mi ght i ndi cat e t he aut hor’s t heoret i cal
posi t i on. Do you t hi nk he i s a Real i st , a Li beral , a member of t he Engl i sh School , a
Marxi st , or a st udent of IPE? Li st t he t erms and your answer i n t he space bel ow.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991 shattered the stability of the Cold War international system, plunging
IR scholars into an intellectual crisis as they tried to come to terms with
the end of bipolarity. Many began to question old certainties and think
about the shape of the post-Cold War world. This led to a shift in IR’s
intellectual focus, away from what might be defined as ‘classical’ security
issues (dealing with states, armies, diplomats and spies) towards a whole
host of ‘new’ security issues associated with globalisation. These are
qualitatively different from their classical and statist predecessors, and
include issues such as human rights, crime, and the environment. It also
reinforced a shift towards new kinds of theory and more issues relating to
international ethics, some of which we will look at in Chapter 6.
To get a sense of this shift, it is worth comparing a standard IR textbook
written during the Cold War with one produced after 1991. The former
normally begins with a few well-chosen observations about the origins
of Cold War following the Second World War, continues with a lengthy
discourse on the foreign policies of the two superpowers, talks about
key concepts, such as sovereignty and polarity, spends some time on the
balance of power and the role of nuclear weapons, and probably concludes
with a general discussion about why the world will not change much
over the longer term. A textbook written after 1991, on the other hand,
generally has very little to say about the Cold War except in an historical
background context. Thus, the USSR and superpower rivalry will not be
included (for obvious reasons), while new topics – globalisation, failed
states, the role of religion, and non-state actors – give the subject a new
feel. In some of the more theoretically daring studies authored after
the Cold War, the focus has shifted away from the study of states and
the notion of a well-structured international system whose laws can be
discovered by careful analysis. Instead, many now emphasise the role of
non-state actors and the apparent absence of a coherent international
structure in the new, uncertain, post-modern world of the 1990s and early
twenty-first century.
Chapt er 1: The t went i et h cent ury ori gi ns of i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
25
The other obvious change is to IR more broadly. After fighting for many
years to get recognition as a subject in its own right – a fight it continues
to wage in many countries in continental Europe – IR in an age of
globalisation has become increasingly popular with students in the
twenty-first century. It is not clear whether this is because the end of the
Cold War brought increasing opportunities for travel, greater international
contact between academics and students, or because it brought a growing
recognition that what happens in one part of the international system is
bound to impact on every other part. Whatever the reason, there is little
doubting the growth of the discipline. IR in the twenty-first century, with
its many world-class departments, recognised international associations,
plethora of journals, global league tables, and intellectual superstars,
has never looked in better shape. In many universities today, we see
that traditional subjects like political science – which normally studies
‘domestic’ affairs – are experiencing tough times. Meanwhile, IR – which
looks at the state of the world today – is on the rise.
One thing, however, remains unchanged. Academic IR still revolves around
an American axis. Interest in the USA as the last superpower remains
high, and American scholars continue to exert an enormous – some would
say disproportionate – influence on the field. Of course, one should not
exaggerate. Other centres of IR – in the UK, Scandinavia and Germany
– have made their presence felt. Moreover, there is a rising number of
major powers in the world for scholars to consider, including the EU – a
focus of much lively discussion since the 1990s – and China – forever
on the rise. But because of its staying power and its position at the heart
of the international system, the USA continues to demand everybody’s
attention. Whether this interest, sometimes bordering on the obsessive, is
likely to go on forever is not entirely certain. Ultimately, it will depend on
many factors, the most fundamental being America’s power in the world,
an issue to which we shall return later in the concluding section of this
course. However, as the first decade of the twenty-first century has given
way to the second, the USA and its academics have continued to exert a
powerful pull on all those around them.
Act ivit y
Pl ace t he appropri at e l et t er (a-d) i n f ront of t he t heory t hat corresponds t o each of
t he f ol l owi ng descri pt i ons of t he Col d War:
_ _ _ Real i sm _ _ _ Li beral i sm _ _ _ The Engl i sh School _ _ _ Marxi sm
a. The Col d War was a compet i t i on bet ween US and Sovi et i nst i t ut i ons, wi t h each
si de t ryi ng t o make t hei r pref erred behavi ours and norms t he accept ed bases of
i nt ernat i onal soci et y.
b. The Col d War was t he resul t of i nsuf f i ci ent i nt erdependence bet ween post -war US
and Sovi et spheres of i nf l uence.
c. The Col d War was an expressi on of t he deep power ambi t i ons t hat cont i nue t o
def i ne compet i t i on bet ween st at es i n t he anarchi c i nt ernat i onal syst em.
d. The Col d War was a means by whi ch domi nant soci oeconomi c cl asses i mposed t hei r
economi c and pol i t i cal domi nance on l ess economi cal l y devel oped groups around
t he worl d.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
26
A reminder of your learning out comes
Having completed this chapter, and the Essential reading and activities,
you should be able to:
• discuss what is meant by the ‘twenty years’ crisis’
• describe the influence of twentieth-century crises on the development
of IR
• illustrate some of the fundamental differences between Realist, Liberal,
English School and Postcolonial approaches to IR
• discuss the subjects with which IR should be concerned
• define the vocabulary terms in bold.
Chapt er vocabulary
anarchic international system
appeasement
balance of power
bipolar
Cold War
containment
critical theorists
English School
globalisation
great powers
hegemony
institutions
interdependence
International Political Economy
(IPE)
international society
isolationism
Liberalism
multipolarity
permanent five (P5)
Realism
revisionist states
Security Council
states
status quo
superpower
transnational
twenty years’ crisis
United Nations (UN)
unipolarity
Sample examinat ion quest ions
1. Why has IR been dominated by Realist ways of thinking about the
international system since the end of the Second World War?
2. What are the main challenges to Realism?
3. In what sense was the Cold War a ‘long peace’?
4. What is the proper subject matter of IR?
After preparing your answers, refer to the Examiners’ commentaries on
the VLE for targeted feedback on specific questions.
27
Part 2: Foundat i ons
Part 2: Foundat ions
Not es
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
28
Chapt er 2: Europe and t he emergence of i nt ernat i onal soci et y
29
Chapt er 2: Europe and t he emergence of
int ernat ional societ y
By 1900 the peoples of Europe and European stock overseas
dominated the globe. They did so in many ways, some explicit
and some implicit, but the qualifications matter less than the
general fact…This was a unique development in world history.
For the first time, one civilization established itself as a leader
worldwide.
Roberts, J .M. The Penguin history of the world.
(London: Penguin, 2007) [ISBN 9780141030425]. p.789.
Aims of t he chapt er
The aims of this chapter are to:
• introduce you to the importance of international history for the study
of IR
• show how IR can be employed to make sense of the past
• critically assess Europe’s impact on the rest of the world.
Learning out comes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential reading and
activities, you should be able to:
• explain some of the reasons why Europe emerged as the main driver of
world politics by the end of the nineteenth century
• discuss competing explanations of the ‘Long Peace’ in Europe between
1814 and 1914
• evaluate different explanations of the causes of the First World War
• assess the impact of the First World War on IR in the twentieth century
• define the vocabulary terms in bold.
Essent ial reading
Armstrong, D. ‘The evolution of international society’.
Furt her reading
Bull, H. ‘International theory: the case for a classical approach’, World Politics
18(3) 1966, pp.20–38.
Buzan, B. and R. Little ‘Units in the modern international system’ in Buzan,
B. And R. Little International systems in world history. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000) [ ISBN 9780198780656] .
Darwin, J. ‘The Eurasian revolution’ in Darwin, J. Tamerlane: the global history
of empire. (London: Penguin Books, 2007) [ ISBN 9781596913936] .
Gellner, E. Plough, book and sword: the structure of human history. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1988) [ ISBN 9780226287027] .
Grader, S., ‘The English School of international relations: evidence and
evaluation’, Review of International Studies 14(1) 1988, pp.29–44.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
30
Little, R. ‘The English School vs. American Realism: a meeting of minds or
divided by a common language?’, Review of International Studies 29(3)
2003, pp.443–60.
McNeill, W.H. The rise of the West: a history of the human community. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1992) [ ISBN 9780226561417] .
Meadwell, H. ‘The long nineteenth century in Europe: reinterpreting the
concert system’ in Cox, M., Dunne, T. and Booth, K. Empires, systems
and states: great transformations in international politics. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002) [ ISBN 9780521016865] . Note: this is
the book form of a special issue of the Review of International Studies 27(5)
2001.
Morris, I. ‘The Western age’ in Morris, I. Why the West rules – for now: the
patterns of history, and what they reveal about the future. (London: Profile
Books, 2011) [ ISBN 9781846682087] .
Roberts, J.M. ‘The European world hegemony’ in Roberts, J.M. The new Penguin
history of the world. (London: Penguin Books, 2007) fifth edition
[ ISBN 9780141030425] .
Schroeder, P.W. ‘The 19th century international system: changes in the
structure’, World Politics 39(1) 1986, pp.1–26.
Sofka, J.R. `The eighteenth century international system: parity or primacy?’,
Review of International Studies 27(2) 2001, pp.147–63.
Tilly, C. Coercion, capital and European states AD 990–1990. (Oxford: Blackwell,
1992) second edition [ ISBN 9781557863683] .
I nt roduct ion
As discussed in Chapter 1, the years between 1914 and 1991 were
disturbed, even ‘dark’, ones that had a very marked impact on the
way in which IR developed as an academic subject. But how did the
international system arrive at that point? Was it an inevitable outcome of
historical events? And what forces produced an international system that,
by the outbreak of the First World War, was dominated by Europe and
Europeans?
In this chapter, we will try to answer some of these questions by looking
at the history of IR – a branch of history called international history
(IH). We will not be able to cover the whole of IH in one chapter. Nor do
we need to. Instead, we will focus on a few specific instances that will
inform your understanding of current events. It is vitally important to
look at the present through the prism of the past. This is partly because
we need to understand the deeper sources of what became the extended
crisis of the twentieth century, and partly to alert students of world politics
to something they should never lose sight of: although nothing stays the
same forever, some of the key problems in world politics have remained
remarkably durable.
Ret hinking t he ‘int ernat ional’: t he English School and
int ernat ional hist ory
St op and read sect ion 1 of Chapt er 2, pp.36–37
What di st i ngui shes t he Engl i sh School ’s approach t o IR f rom t hat of t he Real i st
approach?
Before looking at a few events from international history, we first need to
think about the notion of the international itself. At what point in time –
and where – did ‘the international’ actually emerge as a way of thinking
about a specific kind of relationship? There are two rather different
answers to this fundamental question.
Chapt er 2: Europe and t he emergence of i nt ernat i onal soci et y
31
The first, more traditional response argues that it is impossible to conceive
of something called ‘the international’ without there being something
national against which to define it. Both terms are therefore intimately
connected to ideas of the nation and the state. According to this line of
historical reasoning, we can only begin to think of the international – and
IR – after the rise of sovereign states in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century
Europe. According to this definition, the international can therefore be
understood as a description of the state system, first developed in
post-Reformation Europe, inhabited by autonomous political units, and
organised according to a collection of shared principles and practices such
as sovereignty and non-intervention. These principles and practices –
known as institutions by members of the ES – bring some level of order
to IR in what is otherwise an anarchic system. This institutional order,
based on shared principles and practices, is what Hedley Bull refers to as
international society.
As we will see later, this view of international history has much to
recommend it. However, we need to be sensitive to the fact that other
forms of interaction and exchange existed between all sorts of political,
social and economic groups – tribes, clans, ethnic groups and cities –
long before the fifteenth century and well outside the boundaries of
Europe. Complex systems of interacting groups developed as far apart
geographically as imperial China (a civilisation stretching back 5,000
years), the Middle East (whose civilisations stretch back even further),
and Africa (the most likely cradle of our species). If we accept orthodox
wisdom that homo sapiens came ‘out of Africa’ more than 100,000 years
ago, we might argue that something loosely defined as IR developed
between small human bands when our ancestors first decided to migrate
across Africa, Eurasia and, subsequently, the planet.
International relations did not emerge, fully-grown, with the birth of the
modern European state system around in the sixteenth century. States – as
we shall argue throughout this course – are crucial to explaining much of
what has happened in world politics for the last 500 years. However, world
history clearly shows that, for many centuries, it was not sovereign states
that engaged in diplomacy, warfare and economic exchange. Rather, this
role was often filled by great empires like the Egyptian, the Persian, the
Roman, the Mongol, and even the Mayan and the Aztec. In fact, the more
we discover about these empires’ complex histories, the more we notice
how late in the day states actually emerged as serious players on the world
stage. Moreover, when states did finally emerge out of the shadow of these
empires, they did so with the help of those who had gone before; not just
from the Greeks and the Romans, but also from many parts of the non-
Christian world. Islam, in particular, has played a crucial role in the rise of
Europe’s state system – both negatively by threatening it and positively by
preserving and translating the learning of the ancient world that formed
the basis for the European Renaissance following the medieval period.
St op and read sect ions 2 and 3 of Chapt er 2, pp.37–41
Act ivit y
Each of t he i nt ernat i onal soci et i es descri bed i n t hese readi ngs – Greek, Indi an,
Chi nese, Roman, Chri st i an and Isl ami c – i ncl ude a set of i nst i t ut i ons t hat def i ne who
can act l egi t i mat el y i n i nt ernat i onal soci et y and how t hese act ors are supposed t o
behave. Fol l ow t he exampl e as you compl et e t he t abl e bel ow t o keep t rack of t hese
soci et i es’ di f f erent i nt ernat i onal i nst i t ut i ons. Make a speci al not e of i nst i t ut i ons t hat
devel op i n a number of di f f erent i nt ernat i onal soci et i es.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
32
I nt ernat ional societ y I nst it ut ions of int ernat ional societ y
Greek Who? Ci t y-st at es, Oracl es
How? Arbi t rat i on, Di pl omacy (proxeni a), Rul es of War,
Sanct i t y of Treat i es
Indi an
Chi nese
Roman
Chri st i an
Isl ami c
European expansion
We should be more than a little critical of the ways in which some writers
have traditionally thought about IR: largely through European eyes, and
mainly as something that only became seriously interesting when states
emerged as the main actor in world affairs. IR does not begin and end with
the rise of European states. Students of world politics must nevertheless
confront an incontrovertible fact: that at some point between the late
fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries, Europe – initially around the
Mediterranean and later in states bordering the Atlantic (Portugal, Spain,
the UK, Holland and France) – began to evolve in ways that changed the
course of European and world history. In a very important sense, there was
no such thing as a truly interconnected world before 1500. Only after the
period of European exploration and expansion beginning at the turn of the
sixteenth century can we begin to conceive of such an entity emerging. As
one of the great historians of world history, J.M. Roberts, has argued, the
age of a true world history – and by implication the history of global IR
– starts in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and continues for another
400 years, by which time European domination of the globe was complete.
The sources of this dynamic expansion have been hotly debated. Some
explanations are technical: from Europe’s medieval agricultural revolution,
to the advances made in learning during the Renaissance, to technological
improvements that made oceanic shipping safer and their captains better
able to navigate. Some have suggested a more economic reason: the
rise of capitalism. According to this thesis, it was no coincidence that
as feudalism began to break down and capitalism began to rise in its
wake across Western Europe, it was this region – rather than China or
the Islamic world – that broke free from the pack and pushed outwards
in an extraordinary bout of expansion. Debates about the driving force
behind the rise of the West will, no doubt, continue. Of one thing we can
be certain: whether for cultural, religious, political or economic reasons
(or some combination of all four), the states of Western Europe no longer
simply waited for things to happen to them. Instead, they went out to
make things happen to others.
Chapt er 2: Europe and t he emergence of i nt ernat i onal soci et y
33
The consequences for the world were immense. Not only did imperial
expansion make European states rich, it also made their citizens feel
distinctly – one might say ‘naturally’ – superior to everybody else. It
spawned a vast commerce in African slaves that spelled disaster for
millions and created vast fortunes for the few who lived and prospered
from the unpaid labour of others. Like many of the historical processes
that came before it, Europe’s expansion simultaneously created wealth,
poverty, technological progress and moral barbarity. It fostered invention
and innovation, revolutionised communication, gave birth to modern
geography and cartography – in fact to much of modern science itself. Its
consequences were certainly not neutral from the point of view of global
relationships. In terms of the distribution of power, it reinforced existing
global inequalities. The world was both made and then refashioned by
the European powers, primarily for economic gain though justified on
grounds that made European conquest sound – at least to most Europeans
– enlightened (in terms of raising the level of the ‘natives’), religiously
necessary (spreading Christianity) or racially preordained (with ‘inferior’
races being destined to be ruled by those of the supposedly ‘superior’ white
variety). Significantly, few Europeans of the day opposed expansion and
colonialism. Even liberals and more than a few socialists were counted
among their supporters, arguing well into the early part of the twentieth
century that there was something distinctively progressive about an
economically and culturally superior Europe helping those less fortunate
to join the modern world.
European hegemony
St op and read sect ion 4 of Chapt er 2, pp.41–45
Accordi ng t o Hedl ey Bul l i n The anarchi cal soci et y, i nt ernat i onal soci et i es requi re
agreement on t hree f undament al pri nci pl es i n order t o operat e ef f ect i vel y:
1. a means of f ormal communi cat i on bet ween part i es
2. a means of enf orci ng agreement s bet ween part i es
3. a means of recogni si ng one anot her’s propert y ri ght s.
1
As you read t he assi gned pages of t he t ext book, use t he t abl e bel ow t o not e down
i nst i t ut i ons t hat f ul f i l l ed t hese rol es at vari ous poi nt s i n t he emergence of modern
i nt ernat i onal soci et y.
Hist orical inst it ut ions
Communi cat i on
Enf orcement
Propert y ri ght s
The assault on the world by Europe’s rising states had, by the late
nineteenth century, created European world hegemony, albeit a
contested one. There was opposition – first when the 13 American colonies
defeated and expelled the British Empire in the late eighteenth century,
and again when many of the nations of Latin America expelled the
Spanish and the Portuguese empires in the nineteenth century. However,
1
Bull, H. The anarchical
society: a study of
order in world politics.
(London: MacMillan,
1995) second edit ion
[ISBN 9780333638224]
pp.4–5.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
34
these challenges did not upset Europe’s dominance. The USA made its
revolution in the name of European (even English) ideals, and thereafter
only welcomed immigrants from Europe into the ‘New World’. Meanwhile,
in Latin America, liberation from Spain and Portugal did not lead to the
end of Europe’s influence over the continent. Indeed, its revolutions left
the old European ruling class intact and states such as the USA and the UK
more deeply involved in Latin American affairs than they had been before
the expulsion of Iberian power.
Dynamic expansion made Europe the centre of a world. This revolutionary
transformation – like any great revolutionary transformation – did not
occur without a great deal of organised violence, initially directed against
those who were being subjected to European rule and then against
competing European powers. Spain and Portugal may have been able
to come to a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ over the distribution of colonial
possessions in the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), but no such agreement
seemed possible elsewhere. Indeed, from the sixteenth century onwards,
the Europeans fought a series of bitter and prolonged wars to see who
would, in the end, get the lion’s share of these spoils. Great Britain and
Spain, for instance, were bitter enemies throughout the sixteenth century.
Their long war, which concluded rather dramatically with the destruction
of the Spanish Armada in 1588, was followed by struggle between the
Dutch and the English. This only ended when the Dutch Stadtholder – at
that time the Netherlands’ head of state – ascended to the British throne
in 1688 as King William III. The Anglo–Dutch commercial conflict was
overtaken in the eighteenth century by a long struggle between Great
Britain and France. This struggle continued on and off for just under a
century, was fought across three continents, and only came to a close after
their extended struggle for European (and thus world) domination ended
with the defeat of Napoleonic France at the hands of a grand coalition –
comprising Russia, Prussia, Austria–Hungary and Great Britain – in 1814.
Act ivit y
It has been argued t hat European i mperi al i sm l ed t o t wo di st i nct i nt ernat i onal
soci et i es: one wi t hi n Europe and t he ot her coveri ng t he rest of t he worl d. Compl et e
t he t abl e bel ow t hi nki ng about how i nt ernat i onal i nst i t ut i ons di f f ered when appl i ed
inside and out side of Europe duri ng t he era of European i mperi al i sm.
Social f unct ion I nst it ut ions among
European st at es
I nst it ut ions bet ween
European and
non-European act ors
Communi cat i on Di pl omacy
Enf orcement Treat y maki ng, war
Propert y Mut ual non-i nt ervent i on,
soverei gnt y
From t he Long Peace t o t he Great War
This extended period of competition to determine the dominant actor in
world politics, stretching from around 1500 to 1814, continues to exercise
a great deal of fascination for IR scholars. We might argue that some of
the discipline’s key concepts such as the balance of power – not to mention
Chapt er 2: Europe and t he emergence of i nt ernat i onal soci et y
35
its preoccupation with war and its interest in diplomacy – derive from this
extraordinarily turbulent period. Following 1814, however, something
equally extraordinary occurred: a form of ‘great power’ peace broke out
and lasted – with only a few interruptions – until the outbreak of the First
World War in 1914. Different explanations have been advanced to explain
this period, often referred to as the Long Peace. These have ranged from
the diplomatic efforts put in by the major powers at the peace conference
at the Congress of Vienna; through war weariness (a believable hypothesis
given that at least five million died across Europe between 1789 and
1814); to the notion that, whatever else might have divided them, the
major powers after 1814 shared some common values and interests that
drove them to resolve most of their differences through diplomacy rather
than costly wars.
Others have tried to apply the very modern idea of hegemonic stability
to explain the nineteenth-century’s Long Peace. In this analysis, the
key factor is not so much the existence of a balance of power between
European states – though that was highly significant in Europe itself – but
the structural imbalance that grew up between Great Britain and the rest
of the European powers. Unlike France, or so the hegemonic stability
argument goes, Britain never sought to control mainland Europe, focusing
instead on increasing its influence in the non-European world. It did so
by doing what Britain seemed to do best: pushing ahead industrially;
exporting increasing sums of capital to all corners of the globe;
underwriting world trade through its overwhelming naval superiority;
and teaching others the benefits of commerce and industry over more
dangerous – and less profitable – pursuits such as war and conquest.
Learning quest ion
In one or t wo sent ences, do you t hi nk t hat t he presence of a hegemoni c st at e makes
i nt ernat i onal soci et y more or l ess prone t o war? What exampl es woul d you use t o
j ust i f y your argument ?
How long the nineteenth-century’s Long Peace (or what hegemonic
stability theorists prefer to call the Pax Britannica) could have lasted
remains a hyperthetical question, and has led to more than a few books
and articles being written by international historians and IR scholars alike
about its collapse with the First World War (often called the Great War) in
1914. Several different schools of thought exist. One sees the Great War as
an inevitable consequence of change in the European balance of power
following the unification of Germany in 1871 and its rapid emergence as
a serious economic and military challenger to the status quo. It remains
a commonly held view – especially influential in IR – that the rise of new
powers will lead to increasing tensions between great powers, which
over time are more likely lead to war than anything else. Others have
broadened this thesis by arguing that Germany’s less-than-peaceful rise on
the back of Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s three wars of German
unification (in 1864, 1866 and 1870) made armed conflict between
Europe’s states more likely.
Others argue that the breakdown of the Long Peace could only occur
within a larger set of changes that were taking place in the international
system. According to this thesis, we should focus less on power shifts
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
36
brought about by the rise of a single state, and more on the by-products
of the global struggle for influence between the various great powers. In
other words, the key to understanding the collapse of the old order may
be found in the processes of capitalism and imperialism. This remains the
view of most Marxists, espoused in a pamphlet – Imperialism (1916) – by
the great revolutionary V.I. Lenin. In it, he argues that peace had become
quite impossible by the beginning of the twentieth century because of
capitalists’ determination to carve up the world in a zero sum game, in
which one actor’s gain means another actor’s loss. In some ways, this is
also the view of orthodox Realists, who see politics as an arena in which
‘winner-takes-all’. Though they reject Lenin’s economic explanation of
the First World War, they agree that the odds of the Long Peace surviving
under conditions of increased competition were slim. The end of the Long
Peace was therefore no accident. Rather, for Marxists and Realists alike, it
was the tragic result of conflicts inherent in an international system which
could not be contained by deft diplomacy, carefully worded treaties, or
states’ adherence to a shared set of practices and norms.
Finally, there are many in IR who insist that the Long Peace was only
possible so long as weapons technology remained relatively primitive. The
coming of the industrial revolution, and with it new naval technologies,
improvement in munitions and a rapid acceleration in the destructive
capacity of arms, changed the way states fought, making new forms of
war possible and, by definition, more destructive. This thesis claims that
technology made war far more likely as one state after another began
to invest heavily into these new weapons of death. This arms race may
not, in and of itself, explain what finally happened in 1914. Nevertheless,
the rapid build-up of modern military technology, in a world where war
was still regarded as noble and heroic, made armed conflict more likely,
increasing the insecurity of states great and small.
Act ivit y
One of t he goal s of t hi s chapt er i s t o show how IR t heory can be used t o make sense
of t he past . Usi ng what you have l earned about Real i sm, Li beral i sm, Int ernat i onal
Pol i t i cal Economy, and t he Engl i sh School , how do you t hi nk each school of t hought
woul d account f or t he begi nni ng of t he Fi rst Worl d War? Provi de a bri ef (one- or t wo-
sent ence) t hesi s st at ement f or each of t he f ol l owi ng approaches.
I R t heory Explanat ion of t he First World War
Real i sm
Li beral i sm
Int ernat i onal
Pol i t i cal Economy
Engl i sh School
St op and list en t o t he podcast ‘IRs many explanat ions for t he
Great War’ on t he VLE
Chapt er 2: Europe and t he emergence of i nt ernat i onal soci et y
37
The First World War
These explanations of the roots of the First World War all point to one
self-evident truth: that when nations set out to kill each other in very
large numbers, analysts are unlikely to agree about the causes behind the
conflict. Some have even wondered whether the First World War need
ever have happened at all. This approach – going under broad heading of
counter-factualism – makes one major theoretical claim: that just because
things happen in international affairs, it does not mean that they were
inevitable. Even as we look for the causes of certain events, we need
to remain sensitive to the fact that we are doing so after the events in
question. Inevitability only exists in retrospect, and any claim that any
event had to occur as it did should be viewed with a highly sceptical eye.
This issue has been raised in relationship to the First World War by Niall
Ferguson who has been especially controversial in terms of rethinking
1914.
2
Avoiding the structural explanations described above and highly
critical of those who argue that the war had to happen because of
historical inevitability, he suggests that the whole thing was an avoidable
tragedy, brought about not by German plans for European hegemony, the
nature of the alliance system, or larger imperial ambitions – the normal
fare of IR analysis – but by British miscalculations about the meaning of
German actions in late 1914. Whether Ferguson is right or is merely being
mischievous is an issue that cannot be settled here. However, he does
raise a crucial question that we will explore further in the chapter on war:
namely, how IR should set about explaining the outbreak of wars and what
methods we should employ to best understand why wars happen.
Of one thing we can be certain, however, and here we can agree with
Ferguson: the First World War marks the end of one epoch in world
politics and the beginning of another. As we saw in the first chapter of this
subject guide, the First World War was only the first of three great wars
that came to define the twentieth century. In many ways, however, it was
the most significant, not because it was the bloodiest (the Second World
War lays claim to that dubious distinction) or the longest (the Cold War
was 10 times as long), but because of the dramatic changes that it left in
its wake. The list is long: the outbreak of the Russian Revolution of 1917
and the creation of the USSR; the emergence of the USA onto the world
stage; the shift of financial and economic power from London to New
York; the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires; the first
major stirrings of nationalism in what later came to be known as the Third
World; a bitter sense of betrayal in Germany that helped bring Hitler to
power 15 years later; new opportunities for Japan to expand its holdings
in Asia; and a disastrous economic legacy that made it nigh on impossible
to restore the health to the world economy. Furthermore, though some
may not have realised it at the time, the devastation wrought by the Great
War unleashed a series of changes that finally brought the age of European
global dominance to an end. All of these were outcomes of a war whose
fingerprints can be found all over the century that followed. The First
World War, more than any other event, was the mid-wife of the modern
world.
2
Ferguson, N. The
pi t y of war: expl ai ni ng
Worl d War One.
(London: Penguin,
1998) first edit ion [ISBN
9780713992465].
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
38
A reminder of your learning out comes
Having completed this chapter, and the Essential reading and activities,
you should be able to:
• explain some of the reasons why Europe emerged as the main driver of
world politics by the end of the nineteenth century
• discuss competing explanations of the ‘Long Peace’ in Europe between
1814 and 1914
• evaluate different explanations of the causes of the First World War
• assess the impact of the First World War on IR in the twentieth century
• define the vocabulary terms in bold.
Chapt er vocabulary
arms race
balance of power
capitalism
empire
feudalism
hegemony
hegemonic stability
institutions
international history
international society
Long Peace
nation
state
states-system
zero sum game
Sample examinat ion quest ions
1. How can international society be both ordered and anarchic?
2. What historical processes were responsible for the evolution of the state
as the primary actor in IR?
3. Which best describes the current international situation: a balance of
power, or hegemonic stability?
After preparing your answers, refer to the Examiners’ commentaries on
the VLE for targeted feedback on specific questions.
Chapt er 3: The end of t he Col d War
39
Chapt er 3: The end of t he Cold War
Whatever else might be said about the cold war, the one thing
it cannot be accused of is having failed to engage the interest
of the western intellectual community… It was nearly the most
important relationship we all had at the time.
Cox, M. ‘The end of the Cold War and why we failed to predict
it’ in Hunter, A. Rethinking the Cold War. (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1998).
Aims of t he chapt er
The aims of this chapter are to:
• explain why different experts failed to predict the end of the Cold War
• outline some alternative theories dealing with the end of the Cold War
• discuss its consequences.
Learning out comes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential reading and
activities, you should be able to:
• explain what is involved for IR in the debate about the end of the Cold
War
• explain how competing theories of IR explain the end of the Cold War
differently
• explain how and why the end of the Cold War helped reshape the
international system
• define the vocabulary terms in bold.
Essent ial reading
Cox, M. ‘From the Cold War to the world economic crisis’.
Furt her reading
Bennett, A. ‘The guns that didn’t smoke: ideas and the Soviet non-use of force
in 1989’, J ournal of Cold War Studies 7(2) 2005, pp.81–109.
Collins, R. ‘Explaining the anti-Soviet revolution by state breakdown theory and
geopolitical theory’, International Politics 48(4/5) 2011, pp.575–90.
Cox, M. ‘Another transatlantic split?’ American and European narratives and the
end of the Cold War’, Cold War History 7(1) 2007, pp.121–46.
Cox, M. ‘The uses and abuses of history: the end of the Cold War and Soviet
collapse’, International Politics 48(4/5) 2011, pp.627–46.
Cox, M. ‘Why did we get the end of the Cold War wrong?’, British J ournal of
Politics and International Relations 11(2) 2009, pp.161–76.
Deudney. D. and G.J. Ikenberry ‘The international sources of Soviet change’,
International Security 13(3) 1991/2, pp.74–118.
English, R.D. ‘Merely an above-average product of the Soviet Nomenklatura?
Assessing leadership in the Cold War’s end’, International Politics 48(4/5)
2011, pp.607–26.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
40
Risse, T. ‘Ideas, discourse power and the end of the Cold War: 20 years on’,
International Politics 48(4/5) 2011, pp.591–606.
Snyder, J. ‘The domestic political logic of Gorbachev’s new thinking in foreign
policy’, International Politics 48(4/5) 2011, pp.562–74.
Wohlforth, W. ‘No one loves a Realist explanation’, International Politics 48(4/5)
2011, pp.441–59.
I nt roduct ion
As our discussion of the causes of the First World War makes evident, the
theories that we use to organise our knowledge about the world play a
determining role in how we perceive and understand history. Thus, while a
structural Realist might point to Germany’s rising power as a destabilising
factor in the anarchic international system of the early twentieth century,
a liberal might look to the absence of formal international organisations
capable of managing interdependence between states to avoid armed
conflict. Marxists focus on the role of the class system and control of
the means of production as defining characteristics, while the English
School (ES) points out that war was still a completely acceptable means
of conflict resolution in early twentieth-century Europe, making it a key
institution in European international society in the years before the First
World War. Theory frames the way that we see the world around us,
highlighting and masking different aspects to produce contrasting sets
of explanations. This use of theory separates IR from associated subjects
like international history (IH). While IH generally tries to accumulate
empirically-verified ‘facts’ about the past, IR is more interested in weaving
those facts together to produce analyses and explanations of past and
present. Given the vast – some might say infinite – complexity of human
history, this weaving requires that we select some facts to include and
some to exclude, trimming our empirical evidence to manageable
proportions. This is the function of theory: to simplify the world around us
to such an extent that we can make general comments about IR based on a
limited number of cases.
In this chapter, we turn our attention to the ways in which IR understands
one of the most crucial moments of the late twentieth century: the end
of the Cold War. Just as Europe’s imperial expansion from the fifteenth
century laid the groundwork for the emergence of contemporary
international society, the end of the Cold War played a vital role in shaping
its practices and principles in the twenty-first century. The end of the Cold
War was a tipping-point, transforming both the international system and
IR as an academic subject. The way we think about the two decades that
have elapsed since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of
the Soviet Union in 1991 owes much to what happened before and during
those key events. Indeed, many in IR continue to think about the post-
Cold War world in terms of the bipolar global conflict that preceded it,
using a variety of theoretical models to understand different aspects of this
important period in international history.
This chapter will look at a number of issues related to the end of the
Cold War. First, we will consider the difficult problem of prediction, ably
illustrated by the fact that not a single expert in IR anticipated the events
of 1989 and 1991. We will then ask who, if anyone, actually ‘won’ the Cold
War; and why IR has produced so many different explanations of its end.
Finally, we will examine the consequences of the end of the Cold War for
the international system and IR.
Chapt er 3: The end of t he Col d War
41
The f ailure of predict ion
The social sciences have long grappled with the problem of prediction.
Some see prediction as central to the success of the social sciences, an
indispensible tool if we want to control what happens in the world around
us. In this sense, prediction is an unavoidable part of IR. Others argue that
the complexity of human civilisation and our limited ability to accumulate
and process knowledge make accurate prediction impossible.
Though it provides interesting food for thought, we do not need to get
too involved in this debate to see the difficulties of prediction. The most
immediate evidence is the failure of anyone in IR to see the end of the
Cold War coming. Instead, the vast majority of IR scholars and writers
were in thrall to theories that failed to account for the possibility that the
international order could or would change so completely. One reason was
the tendency of scholars in IR to reify international actors and structures
– treating dynamic, contested, and evolving systems as if they were static,
unified and fully developed. The problem of reification continues to
plague many subfields in IR. This is particularly true with reference to
states, which are often treated as stable, cohesive and fully developed
actors on the world stage, akin to an individual human being in its
ability to speak with a single voice on any given issue. This assumption
simplifies the state and allows us to make generalisations about state
behaviour, a key goal of IR. At the same time, it underestimates the
likelihood of change, leaving analysts surprised and shocked when states
are transformed by events going on inside and outside their borders. In the
late 1980s, reification led many academics and policy-makers to believe
that Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms of the Soviet Union would have little
influence on either the USSR or the international system. His reforms, it
was assumed, would not lead to a Soviet withdrawal from Central and
Eastern Europe, much less to the collapse of the Soviet system. For a
student just starting out in IR, it should be comforting to know that even
the experts are sometimes embarrassingly wrong.
There are many more specific explanations of why the experts failed to
see that the end was nigh in 1989. One of these argues that because many
in the discipline saw orderly virtue in the bipolar structure of the Cold
War international system, they were deeply reluctant to contemplate its
collapse. This was particularly true of structural Realism – discussed in
Chapters 1 and 5 of this guide – which assumed that the structural stability
of the international system would block any large-scale systemic change.
This analysis, located at the systems level of analysis, focused on
the constraints imposed on actors’ autonomy by the international system
itself. By assuming the stability of these constraints, IR blinded itself to the
possibility of their passing between 1989 and 1991.
Another explanation of IR’s failure to predict the Cold War’s end
emphasises the way in which the West understood – or misunderstood –
the USSR as a system of power. This explanation, carried out at a unit
level of analysis that focuses on the actors that make up international
systems, overestimated the power and threat of the Soviet Union while
at the same time ignoring its many weaknesses. Until very late in the day,
the working assumption of most policy-makers (and academics) was that
while the Soviet state contained many flaws, these would not threaten
its stability. They assumed that its planned economy would continue
to muddle along and that the Kremlin would never surrender control
of its satellite states in Central and Eastern Europe. Why should it? By
maintaining a cordon sanitaire between its Western borders and those of
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
42
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Soviets kept Germany
divided, NATO on the defensive and the USSR safe from a surprise attack
by the Western powers. Analysts’ reification of the USSR therefore masked
its internal weaknesses and contradictions, leaving IR unable to grapple
with the possibility of its collapse in 1991.
At the heart of the debate is the complex figure of the Soviet leader,
Mikhail Gorbachev. A strong case has been made that it was nearly
impossible to predict the end of the Cold War because it was nearly
impossible to predict that a figure like Gorbachev could emerge. Experts
carrying out research at this individual level of analysis did not
anticipate how far he would go along the path of political reform.
Moreover, Gorbachev may not have been master of his own domain.
There is a great deal of evidence to indicate that he was less in control of
events than his apologists would claim; and that what happened in 1989
was largely an unintended consequence of his policies. Given all of this,
how then could anybody have predicted the end of the Cold War? Even
those with the greatest access to information – the American intelligence
community – missed the boat. They argued that the USA should take
advantage of Gorbachev’s reforms to extract as many concessions as
possible from the Russians, but they could not assume that the USSR
would continue along its reformist path. Indeed, there was every chance
that Gorbachev would be overthrown by hard line critics within the Soviet
state, who would then turn the political clock back to more adversarial
days of the Cold War.
Act ivit y
Usi ng t he t abl e bel ow, l i st a f ew possi bl e expl anat i ons f or t he 2008 gl obal f i nanci al
mel t down at t he syst ems, uni t , and i ndi vi dual l evel s of anal ysi s. More speci f i cal l y, who
woul d anal yst s bl ame f or t he cri si s at each l evel ? Once you have f i l l ed i n t he t abl e,
i dent i f y t he l evel t hat you t hi nk best expl ai ns i nt ernat i onal event s. Keep t rack of t hi s
as you t hi nk about ot her event s i n t hi s course, f rom t he end of t he Col d War t o 9/ 11
t o t he Arab Spri ng.
Level of
analysis
Cause of f inancial crisis Who is t o blame?
Syst ems
Uni t
Indi vi dual
Who won t he Cold War?
If IRs failure to predict the end of the Cold War has been controversial, so
too has its inability to generate a single, generally-accepted explanation
of the event since 1991. In the USA, there has been a concerted effort
within the conservative wing of the Republican Party to claim credit
for the end of the Cold War, with special accolades falling to President
Ronald Reagan. Reagan, they claim, won the Cold War by being bold,
tough and decisive – in effect competing aggressively with the Soviet
Union by increasing US military spending and confronting the USSR
in the Third World. Eschewing the weak policies hitherto pursued by
his predecessors – including one or two other Republicans – Reagan is
Chapt er 3: The end of t he Col d War
43
thought to have showed the way: forcing the USSR to the negotiating
table in the second half of the 1980s and compelling the Soviets to retreat
around the world thereafter. Reagan’s advocates argue that it was not
just the economic strength of the West or the appeal of democracy that
defeated communism, it was US leadership and the tough, no-nonsense
policies pursued by its strong conservative leader, who refused to appease
America’s enemies. It is a theoretical position heavily influenced by
Realism and its emphasis of the distribution and use of power within the
international system.
The view that Reagan won the Cold War by pursuing a strategy of ‘peace
through strength’ has not gone unchallenged. Critics note that during
his second term, Reagan achieved more as a result of engagement with
Gorbachev than through his earlier policy of confrontation. Nor was it
the USA alone that helped bring the unrest to an end. Its European allies
played a vital role in bringing the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion, from
the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher – who initially suggested in
1984 that Gorbachev was someone with whom we ‘could do business’ – to
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl – who energised German foreign policy
in October and November 1989 by pushing for German unification. The
‘Reagan won it’ school of thought is also attacked on the more general
grounds of focusing too much on one individual and ignoring the larger
structural forces at play in the international system. Many members of the
ES agree with this attack, preferring systems-level explanations that focus
on the sustainability of ‘Western’ institutions – including as capitalism
and representative democracy – over their ‘Soviet’ rivals which included
centrally-planned economics and popular democracy in the Soviet style.
Learning quest ion
In t he previ ous paragraph, we l ooked at an expl anat i on f or t he end of t he Col d War
t hat emphasi ses t he i mport ance of West ern engagement wi t h t he Sovi et Uni on over
t he rol e of mi l i t ary and pol i t i cal conf ront at i on.
In a short paragraph, expl ai n whi ch of t he t heori es ment i oned i n Chapt er 1 best
capt ures t hi s argument . Be sure t o i ncl ude a t hesi s st at ement at t he begi nni ng of your
paragraph t hat sums up your argument .
You can post t hi s paragraph t o t he course sect i on of t he VLE f or f eedback f rom your
peers and t he academi c moderat or.
I R t heory debat es t he end of t he Cold War
Within academia, the debate about the end of the Cold War has today
assumed a somewhat different character. Reagan and US policy are still
given their place in the hierarchy of causes, but the focus has moved
from the role of individuals to what might be termed ‘objective’ factors
operating at higher levels of analysis. There are a wide variety of
narratives from which to choose. These range from internalist explanations
that stress the extent of Soviet economic decline by the 1980s and fall
squarely into unit-level analyses; to systems-level explanations that focus
on the ability of Western capitalism to globally outcompete its centrally-
planned economic rival. Many contemporary Realists have become
attracted to this type of explanation. According to the most interesting
of these – William Wohlforth, Dartmouth College – the events of the
1980s can readily be explained in basic material terms. The Cold War was
caused, he argues, by the rise of the Soviet Union and the extension of its
power after the Second World War. Logically, it came to an end when the
economic bases of that power began to decline in the 1980s.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
44
Though it has its fair share of academic supporters, this interpretation also
has its critics. It may be true, its critics accept, that the Soviet economy
was in deep trouble and the USSR overstretched. But, as they point out,
the economy was hardly collapsing when Gorbachev took over in 1985.
Moreover, though Soviet foreign policy came with a very high price tag,
it was not so high as to force the collapse of the entire Soviet system.
Instead, these alternative analyses insist that the active role played by
ideas led to an important shift in Soviet thinking over the course of the
1980s. Gorbachev’s new thinking was meant to take the USSR beyond its
traditional theories of a global class struggle between two international
camps. Some of Gorbachev’s new ideas came from within the USSR
itself, especially from its various ‘think tanks’. Several others came from
within the larger leftist and socialist movement around the world. Even
Western peace movements, which had grown up in the 1970s and early
1980s, played a role in helping Gorbachev rethink Russian security within
a larger, pan-European context. His idea of a new ‘European home’, in
which all states could achieve security without military blocs, arose within
the context of ongoing debates that he and his advisers were having
with Western thinkers and writers. True, these debates were only one
factor that helped Gorbachev develop his world view before and after
taking power in 1985. Yet the evidence seems clear. Ideas, domestic and
international, mattered a great deal in the USSR and helped persuade the
Soviet leadership to break out of its old security dilemma in order to find
another way of doing business with the rest of the world.
St op and reread t he subsect ion ‘Social const ruct ivism’ on
pp.5–6 of t he Int roduct ion
The role of ideas in bringing the Cold War to an end has been championed
by a group of thinkers whom we first read about in Chapter 1 and will
discuss in more detail in Chapter 6: the Constructivists. As an influential
school of thought in IR, Constructivism has its roots in the events that
took place between 1989 and 1991. Constructivists accuse Realists of
having neither a theory of historical change nor any understanding of the
active role played by ideas in bringing about the end of the Cold War – in
other words of material determinism. Each is certainly a powerful way
of attacking Realism, echoing the concerns of other critical theories within
IR. Constructivists in particular argue that because of Realists’ theoretical
attachment to Cold War bipolarity, they were ill-equipped to explain, let
alone predict, its unravelling. Consequently, Constructivists argue that
Realists became mere onlookers with nothing of importance to say about
the end of the Cold War.
Such attacks on Realism have continued from a variety of quarters ever
since, with one after another being published in a series of influential
articles and books which appeared from the early 1990s. These have
gradually worn away the once impregnable Realist edifice. In fact,
so successful have these attacks been that even though Realism has
retained many important followers, Constructivism and other alternative
conceptions of the international have now established themselves as
intellectually powerful currents within the discipline. By the end of the
1990s, it would be fair to say that Constructivism, alongside Liberalism
and Realism, become one of the subject’s more influential theoretical
approaches.
Chapt er 3: The end of t he Col d War
45
Act ivit y
Di f f erent t heori es are i nt ended t o answer di f f erent sort s of quest i ons. Use t he t abl e
bel ow t o t hi nk about t he sort s of quest i ons t hat Real i sm, Li beral i sm, Const ruct i vi sm,
and t he Engl i sh School are best sui t ed t o answer i n rel at i on t o t he end of t he Col d
War.
Theoret ical
approach
Quest ion
Real i sm Example: What rol e di d t he di st ri but i on of power wi t hi n t he
i nt ernat i onal syst em pl ay i n t he col l apse of Col d War bi pol ari t y?
Li beral i sm
Const ruct i vi sm
Engl i sh School
The int ernat ional syst em af t er t he end of t he Cold War
As we have suggested throughout this course, the period from 1989 to
1991 was one of incredible importance to IR. Like the three great crises
of the twentieth century that gave birth to IR (see Chapter 1), the end of
the Cold War was a transformational moment that changed international
society – including the world economy – forever. Naturally, critics of this
view argue that change is ever-present in world politics and that other
events have been just as important in shaping international affairs. There
is something to this argument. However, it is difficult to think of another
event between 1947 and 1991 that has had the same impact on the world
as the end of the Cold War. Certainly, none altered the balance of power
and the structure of the international capitalist system in anything like
the same way. The question is not whether the end of the Cold War was a
critical juncture in the longer history of the twentieth century. It obviously
was. Rather, we need to consider the impact it actually had. The best way
to do this is to focus on what actually happened to specific countries and
regions.
Communism af t er Communism
The immediate consequences of the end of the Cold War were felt first in
communist states and varied widely from place to place. Some communist
governments simply collapsed, most obviously those which had been
taken over by the USSR in the wake of the Second World War. These
states, such as Poland and Hungary, reoriented their foreign policies
westwards, in effect becoming part of the West through membership
of NATO and the European Union (EU). Others followed a different
trajectory. Yugoslavia descended into a bloody civil war. Fortunately, the
breakup of the Soviet Union was comparatively peaceful, though conflicts
did break out on its periphery, most notably in the Caucasus and parts of
Central Asia. The experiences of the former Soviet republics have been
mixed. The three Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – managed
to anchor themselves within the Western, democratic camp. Other states
such as Belarus, Uzbekistan and Russia itself followed alternative paths.
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
46
The Russian Federation, which succeeded to the bulk of Soviet territory
and population, is an especially interesting and important case. For a
short while, it looked as if Russia was moving into the Western camp.
With the election of President Vladimir Putin, however, it became clear
that the transition in Russia was not moving in the direction originally
mapped out for it by the West and its Russian allies. This will probably
not lead to a ‘new’ Cold War as some have speculated. However, it has left
Russia’s relationship with the West in a delicate state, subject to regular
misunderstandings and always liable to veer out of control.
Other communist states followed an even less predictable trajectory. Far
from the end of the Cold War in Europe leading to the wholesale collapse
of communist power around the world, some communist states stabilised
and even widened their control over people and territory. This is most
obviously true in China, where the communist party reasserted its control
following the bloody suppression of protests in Tiananmen Square in
1989. But it was also true in other states such as Cuba, Vietnam and North
Korea where the grip of ruling parties has proved tenacious. This has had
disturbing consequences in North Korea. Whereas China and Vietnam –
and more recently Cuba – have progressively deepened their integration
into global market by liberalising their economies, North Korea has sought
security by developing its own nuclear arsenal as deterrence against
international intervention. Thus, the end of the Cold War made North
Korea more of a danger to the stability of the international system even
while it opened space for the integration of other communist states into
mainstream international society.
What ever happened t o t he ‘Third World’?
We can trace an equally complex set of results in what became known
during the Cold War as the ‘Third World’. In these largely postcolonial
states, the anti-imperialist promise of national liberation and justice
gave way – after 1989 – to something quite different. In some cases,
‘socialist’ experiments simply abandoned talk of planning and equality in
favour of far-reaching market reforms. In India, this produced impressive
socioeconomic results. In other countries, the end of the Cold War led
to socioeconomic disaster, with regimes once justified in the name of
Marxism giving way to tribalism and banditry. This process has been
especially brutal in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly around the Horn of
Africa – Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, southern Sudan and northern Kenya.
Here, longstanding rivalries that had once been masked by Cold War
alliances percolated to the surface of international affairs. In some cases,
this ended in victory for one of the dominant factions fighting for control
of all, or part of, the state. For example, in Angola and Mozambique,
former Marxist rebels defeated their opponents and became the new
ruling class. In places like Somalia, the state simply imploded with terrible
consequences for local populations and the international community alike,
and each must now face down immense challenges posed by rampant
poverty, piracy, terrorism and persistent food shortages in a country
without a state.
Political change after 1991 was accompanied by far-reaching economic
reform of the Third World. In the next chapter we will look in more detail
at globalisation: a process whose acceleration has arguably been one of the
more important outcomes of the end of the Cold War. While the end of the
Cold War may not have been the primary cause of the new global economy
that emerged in the 1990s, it made the case for market-oriented reforms
almost irresistible. After all, how could one argue for a non-capitalist,
Chapt er 3: The end of t he Col d War
47
planned road to economic development in less developed countries when
that very model had just collapsed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet
Union? Prior to 1991, it could be claimed that, whatever its many faults
and weaknesses, central planning was a viable approach to development
located outside of the world market. After 1991, it was no longer possible
to make this case with any degree of seriousness. The alternative had been
tried and it had failed, leaving former communist states to implement
fundamental liberal economic reform at home – including the privatisation
of state assets and allowing firms to go bust – while at the same time
opening up their once closed economies to the wider world market.
The economic costs were high. The social consequences were certainly
problematic. But, at the end of the day, there seemed to be no other way.
Europe
Although the end of the Cold War produced deeply ambiguous results
in the Third World, its effects were far more positive in Europe. There is
now widespread agreement that, however difficult the transition from
the Cold War turned out be, the results have generally been economically
and politically beneficial for the continent. Germany did not start acting
like the Germany of old, as some pessimistic Realists thought it must do in
order to steady the balance of power against America’s newfound status
at the top of the international system. Outside the former Yugoslavia and
the Caucasus, Europe did not descend into the nationalist conflicts that
defined the first half of its twentieth century. Instead, in spite of a rocky
economic and political start, most of Central and Eastern Europe made
a reasonable transition towards the liberal marketplace and the relative
security of the EU.
Later in this course, we will discuss ways in which to think about Europe
as a special kind of ‘power’ in the international system. For now, we will
look at another, equally interesting, problem: how and why did Europe
manage the transition out of communism with such success? At least three
answers have been suggested.
The first involves identity. For decades after the Second World War, the
peoples of Eastern Europe were compelled to live under what many of
them regarded as foreign rule. This alienated them from the USSR and
reinforced their admiration for the West. When the Cold War finally ended,
these former Soviet satellite states could return ‘home’ to Europe and the
West – from which they had been separated since at least 1945. This sense
of a common European identity was reinforced by the fact that only a few
of the USSR’s former satellites had been fully and completely locked away
behind the iron curtain. East Germans, for example, clearly knew what
life was like in West Germany. More generally, Eastern Europeans were
aware of (and attracted to) what they imagined life to be like in Western
Europe. Sometimes their fascination with all things Western bordered on
the naïve. Still, it meant that when they finally had the chance to join the
object of their fascination, they did so enthusiastically.
Europe’s transition was made easier by the success of the European
project, particularly its organisational embodiment: the European
Union. Formed after the war as a means of reconciling the aspirations of
previously warring states – Germany and France in particular – Europe’s
common market gradually evolved from a narrowly defined economic
body towards something like a genuine political community. As it grew
numerically, it also expanded its functions. By the time the European
Community (EC) became the European Union (EU) in 1992, it had the
support of the overwhelming majority of Europeans, who associated
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
48
their prosperity and democratic rights with the existence of an integrated
Europe. Gorbachev himself was much impressed with what had been
achieved in Western Europe since the late 1940s, and was a great admirer
of the EC – particularly the central part it played in integrating the once
fragmented continent. The role the EC/EU played in persuading the
USSR to give up its hold over Eastern Europe is an important, though
understudied, part of the story of 1989. Regardless, the EC/EU played an
enormous role in holding the European states together at a time of great
turmoil, and facilitating the economic and political transition of the post-
Communist East. There is no way of knowing what might have happened
without the EC/EU, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that without
it, the end of the Cold War would have created many more problems for
Europe and the wider world.
Finally, Europe was especially fortunate in that it is home to the world’s
most successful collective security alliance: NATO. Formed in 1949 with
what its first Secretary-General termed the triple purpose of ‘keeping the
Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down’, NATO was critical
in holding the West together through the Cold War and in helping Europe
negotiate its way through the security problems that followed 1991. In
all of this, the USA was a crucial player. It is easy enough to be critical
of America’s foreign policies during and after the Cold War. However,
during the critical years of transition it successfully reassured allies and
former enemies alike. Hegemons are not always popular, and in Europe
– especially in France – many dreamed that the continent would soon
be able to look after its own security needs without American assistance.
However, as the Cold War gave way to the 1990s, one thing became
abundantly clear: the USA remained an indispensable part of Europe’s
security architecture.
A reminder of your learning out comes
Having completed this chapter, and the Essential reading and activities,
you should be able to:
• explain what is involved for IR in the debate about the end of the Cold
War
• explain how competing theories of IR explain the end of the Cold War
differently
• explain how and why the end of the Cold War helped reshape the
international system
• define vocabulary terms in bold.
Chapt er vocabulary
Constructivism
deterrence
European Union
individual level of analysis
iron curtain
material determinism
reification
systems level of analysis
Third World
unit level of analysis
Chapt er 3: The end of t he Col d War
49
Sample examinat ion quest ions
1. Why has the end of the Cold War been the subject of so much debate in
IR?
2. What role did individuals play in ending the Cold War?
3. Would you place more emphasis on ideas or economics in explaining
why the Cold War came to an end?
4. Why have post-communist states been impacted differently by the end
of the Cold War?
After preparing your answers, refer to the Examiners’ commentaries on
the VLE for targeted feedback on specific questions.
Not es
11 Int roduct i on t o i nt ernat i onal rel at i ons
50